Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[guanophore]

Come on, fair go, your light and absurdly superficial dismissal of sola scriptura and sola fide using this incident borders on the ridiculous, quite frankly.

You have not even interacted - in a calm, measured theological sense - with what I said in my post on sola scriptura and sola fide.

Would you like to have another attempt at doing this?

Honestly, if the Scripture were meant to be the final authority, don 't you think they would at least testify this about themselves?

One only needs to look at the history of the development of this teaching to find that it lacks Apostolic roots. The Reformers needed a valid authority to replace the corrupt clergy and found the next best thing in the SS doctrine.

Thanks Rob.

My point is that we don’t know, neither you or I, what those traditions are/were that Paul is talking about. They could be the various doctrines that we don’t find explicitly in scripture but are part of your church’s sacred tradition or maybe Paul was talking about other things that later found their way in scripture.

I think it is impossible for people to know them who have been separated from the Apostolic succession which has preserved them.

You are holding the controverted position that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church God willed, planned and designed in his infinite eternal counsels. This I reject.

I do affirm that the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the universal (catholic) church which was built upon the foundation of the New Teatament prophets and apostles, with Jesus Christ (NOT PETER!) being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE.

The Catholic Church has never claimed that Peter was the chief cornerstone!

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon’s name?

 

[guanophore]

Sola scriptura is the end result of the canonisation of scripture.

It is the public witness that the scriptures are the PERFECT word of God written that declared God’s majesty and his will for humanity.

If SS were true, then there would not have been another authority for four centuries.

Also, they would not need an authoritative Source from outside themselves to validate them.

Many things your church now believes weren’t taught by Jesus or the disciples…yet your church makes them dogma.

There were things that were not yet understood, and although they were contained in the original deposit of faith, they were not fully understood until later.

Not one catholic has really nailed down exactly what the nebulous “tradition” is or consists of. I doubt you know either.

Catholics do not find it necessary to “nail down” the Apostolic teachings. It is a way of life, and a world view that governs one’s perceptions.

Of course I could opt for the Christianity “plus” that you have.

So says your church.

How did you happen to get so hostile toward Catholicism?

So you think there are some traditions your church has defined as dogma that aren’t found in scripture?

Absolutely.

I assume you subscribe to a partim-partim view of tradition…some things in scripture and some in tradition.

Scripture and Tradition are two strands of the One Divine Deposit of Faith. They were never meant to be separated. The separation of one from the other has created gross fracturing in the Body.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can add to the gospel of Christ.

As you have testified, sola scriptura was not “active” during the period of enscripturation. This is because it was not taught or embraced by Christ and the Apostles. He committed HIs teaching to men, trained them, empowered them, authorized them, breathed upon them and guided them. These gifts did not suddenly cease when the NT was written. If they had, we would not have many of the early doctrines developed, such as the hypostatic union an the Trinity, and the canon of the NT.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

I’m happy to respond to your questions. I have read a lot of your posts and I respect you, even though we don’t agree on all points.

1. The inconsistencies I have seen in infallible Catholic teaching would include:

• The unclear status of Vatican 2 as a lawfully assembled, authoritative Council. Many Catholics eg the Sedevacantists among others would hold that Vatican 2 is a betrayal of traditional Catholicism. How do you answer this?

No matter which side is right, I don’t see how the existence of that controversy shows an inconsistency in infallible Catholic teaching. The debate over Vatican 2 doesn’t have anything to do with the Church’s infallibility. I don’t understand your position on this at all.

Lots of Christians think the Bible isn’t inerrant. Does that make it not inerrant? What people incorrectly think of it doesn’t change its actual nature or status.

If lots of Catholics have incorrect views about Vatican II, how does that effect its actual status? Not at all. It just means lots of private individuals are making mistakes. That does not in any way relate to the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility.

• The fact that there are liberal theologians in official positions who are Roman Catholics.
• The fact that the RCC has allowed practising homosexuals in its ranks and failed to take appropriate action in all cases.

These are issues of Church discipline, not Church infallibility. There is a huge difference.

Individual Catholics – take all those pedophile priests, for instance – can certainly fail to properly follow the Church’s authoritative teaching. That doesn’t negate the complete truth of the teaching itself.

The Church’s leaders can make mistakes in not disciplining its members rigorously enough. It also is very forgiving, though, and slow to throw out disobedient children. Perhaps it is too slow to do this.

Those are matters of discipline. There can be errors in the application of Church discipline and in the behaviors or beliefs of individual Church members. That doesn’t mean there is error in the infallible doctrine of the Church itself.

• The fact that the RCC appears to have changed its position over “limbo” and the status of unbaptized babies.

There never was an official, dogmatic statement on limbo. There has never been an infallible teaching offered about limbo at all, either in support of it or in rejection of it. So the Church has shown no infallible inconsistency as regards limbo.

• The fact that the nature of hell is variously portrayed and explained. This seems strange in the light of your assertion that Catholic Church teaching is infallible.

There are a few things that should be said about this.

First, there is a lot of ignorance among Catholics about official Catholic teaching on the nature of Hell. Therefore errors on the part of laypeople are bound to happen. That in no way negates the infallible teaching about Hell that exists.

Second, many people use the writings of saints or their own theories to elaborate further on the official Catholic teaching that exists about Hell. Differences between these views does not matter. This territory has not been infallibly defined, so no infallible inconsistency exists here. And no disagreement with infallible teaching appears here either. Catholics are perfectly at liberty to elaborate further in their beliefs on these matters that have not been dogmatically defined.

Third, even if all Catholics disagreed with infallible Church teaching, this would not make the teaching itself fallible. It would show merely an inconsistency of belief, not an inconsistency of infallible teaching.

None of the inconsistencies you’ve listed are inconsistencies between infallible teachings. All of them are inconsistencies or failings in the behavior or beliefs of Catholic people. Catholics are human and can fall into error, deviating from Church teaching through ignorance or conceit. Church leaders also can sometimes also fail in sufficiently disciplining their flocks. Personal, non-infallible theories can rise and fall in the Church. What you have listed is a variety of forms of human error within the Church. We believe human error does indeed exist in individual Church members and even very large numbers of Catholics can make mistakes or go astray. But the councils or popes themselves, when teaching dogma ex cathedra, do not go astray.

1. For the scriptures that I base sola scriptura on see Post number 629. You must understand that sola scriptura is also held on theological grounds as a result of the process of inspiration, inscripturation and canonisation.

Please explain to me how you think these sources, “inspiration, inscripturation and canonisation,” provide theological grounds for Sola Scriptura.

 

[historyb]

Response to historyb;

Quote:
No and notice I never said that. It is something Catholics have used as a Protestant myth, no Protestant believes that.

Then what did you mean – who wrote the different books of the NT and who compiled it if it wasn’t the Catholic Church? Do you know that from the very beginning we have always had Bible readings included in the celebration of the Mass?

It was not the RCC that wrote the Bible, period. The NT was written by the Apostles and/or their helpers through the inspiration of God. There was no Catholic church in them days.

If you study you will find tha those 7 books were considered extra canonical from the get go. The RCC included them back in.

The so-called deuterocanonical books or the apocrypha as Protestants call them are not extra at all but have been removed from protestant Bibles. The Early Apostolic Fathers following the Apostles used the Septuagint or Greek translation of the OT used by the Jews of the dispersion made in Alexandria. The Fathers peppered their writings with references from the “extra” OT books because Jesus, his Apostles, the New Testament writers and the early Church all used an OT that included these extra books. The Palestine canon of the OT which excluded these books and which Protestant Christian use had only been invented in 97AD at the Jewish Council of Jamnia. Interestingly, among the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered near Qumran in 1947 the deutero. OT books found in Catholic Bibles but not in Protestant ones have been uncovered in Hebrew.

They are considered extra even in history, not just recently.

I highly disagree with that list, in fact in Scriptures Paul appeals to James in Jersulam not Peter in Rome.

Regarding part of the authentic list of Popes provided by us from Peter in 64AD to the present date, kindly refer to the highly esteemed concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church issued by Oxford University Press for the full historic list of 265 Popes. Your statement of disagreement is common among Fundamentalist Christians who have no idea of history at all and who despise us. If you people were allowed to study history and not only the Bible you would become Catholic. The famous and highly esteemed convert from Anglicanism, Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote, “To be seeped in History is to be Catholic”. You cannot deny history, my friend – you do yourself a disservice!!!

I can and I was a Catholic for 10 years and I am not a fundamentalist so please don’t assume. I don’t care what big mucky muck wrote that list it still would not be accurate.

God, in Jesus tells us ”all authority has been given to me” This authority he passed on to his Apostles who with the prophets formed the foundation of the Church. This Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Tim3:15. The leaders of this Church, Peter and his successors, the Apostles and the Bishops have clearly had this authority passed on to them. See Matt 16:18-19 and other texts. So Pope Damasus indeed had supreme authority. This has been accepted by history and the Church down the ages. Who are you now to tell us that this is not so!

No it hasn’t another catholic invention

*“HistoryB” why don’t you live up to your name! You obviously chose it because you have an inquisitive mind. Please, let us engage in healthy, intelligent debate by backing our arguments with Bible quotes and Historical facts. Let us make progress and not stubbornly adhere to the “yes but, yes but, yes but……” of some of the posters who obviously do not really read and take note of some of the outstanding and painstaking responses by some of the posters. In fact, I have decided not to engage with people who are wasting time on these threads.

I myself am a revert to the Catholic Church after a long absence and I am reading and learning. I am not an expert and have to selectively study and always ensure that my sources are impeccable.*
:yup: :tiphat:

I chose the name because of certain periods I admire in history, you have a very bad habit of assuming things. I am sorry to hear your a revert I will pray that God will enlighten you so you may leave that man based stuff and return to a true relationship with Christ.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, thanks for the post number! I’m going to start by digging into the verses you offered us as support for Sola Scriptura.

I don’t have time to go through every one of the scriptures you referred to, but I’ll just take the first six on your list. I’d appreciate it if you’d select a few from here that you feel do clearly refer to Scripture being the sole and final authority and arbiter of faith and doctrine, and explain why you think so.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 doesn’t even mention the Scripture. Paul says there that he was opposed while trying to spread the “message.” There’s nothing in that about each individual privately interpreting doctrine from Scripture alone for themselves. There’s not even any clear reference to Scripture at all in that passage.

1 Peter 1:20-21 asserts that prophecy in Scripture comes from the mouth of God, not from fallible human interpretations and understanding. This asserts the inerrancy of the Old Testament Prophets. Many Catholics believe in that too. The Catechism asserts that they come to us without error. This position in no way supports the idea that Scripture is the sole standard of faith.

John 10:35 says the Scripture cannot be broken. This is a good argument for scriptural inerrancy, but not for Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura involves each individual privately interpreting Scripture. John 10:35 says nothing about that.

Luke 16:29-31 says that people should listen to the Law and the Prophets. It doesn’t say we should listen to the Law and the Prophets alone, therefore it provides no support to Sola Scriptura. The belief that there is value in reading the Old Testament is taught in the Catholic Church too; it in no way rejects the authority of the Magesterium or Sacred Tradition.

Psalm 119:11 says we should treasure the Word of God in our hearts. Catholics believe we should do that too. How in the world does that support the idea that Scripture should be the sole standard of doctrine?

1 Peter 1:10-11 says the Old Testament prophets made careful investigation, guided by the Spirit within them, into the sufferings and glory of Christ when they offered their testimony. It doesn’t say that they were making the Scripture the standard of their investigation. It doesn’t even say that the Scripture was a part of their investigation. In fact, the only explicit authority referred to in this passage is the “Spirit of Christ within them.” It certainly says nothing about the Scripture being the “sole” or “final” standard for the selection of doctrine. In addition, I should add here that even if you were correct in your guess that they were making the Scripture the standard of their investigation, this was before the Magesterium even existed. So if the prophets of the Old Testament used a different means of arriving at truth than the Catholic Church does today, that’s no big surprise. We don’t live by in an Old Testament era, though, but in a New Testament era.

Besides, most Protestants will argue that Sola Scriptura didn’t even exist until all the books of the Bible were written. When the prophets were writing theirs, this certainly wasn’t the case. So it can’t be a support for Sola Scriptura.

Hi Lief, I have read your post with interest.

The point of the scriptures I have quoted is to demonstrate, with clarity, the self-authenticating power of scripture. In my opinion, these scriptures bear abundant testimony to this concept.

The scriptures are inerrant, in the original autographs. In this affirmation you agree with me.

Where we differ is that I view the inerrant scriptures as self-authenticating - this is the essence of sola scripture; you view the inerrant scriptures not as self-authenticating but needing the special interpretation of the Roman Catholic Magisterium to make their meaning clear. This latter view I reject as being inconsistent with the scriptures testimony concerning its self-authenticating power.

This is the watershed difference between us.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

Hi Lief,

I have, of course, read your post number 738 (quoted already above) where you - rightly, I must add - warn of the dangers of subjectivism in interpreting the scriptures.

You wrote:

“That is a serious problem with the Scripture + Spirit + Me approach- you get people with all kinds of contradictory experiences, interpretations and views.”

I have listened carefully to what you have said. You make some fair and valid points in this connection.

All I would say is this. A belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone), as I so hold it, is adamant that the scripture is clear in itelf - OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING - and is its own interpreter. This is the chief difference between us.

If that is the case, then why are there over 30,000 Protestant denominations and counting?

Also, the differences between these denominations frequently rush into areas that are extremely important for salvation. These include:

1. The transforming power of baptism. Many Protestants think it is symbol only. Others think that it has real power to save. There also are differences over infant baptism, which are important if baptism is much more than a mere symbol, as many think. Baptism is crucial to salvation, and there are major disagreements about it.
2. The nature of the Eucharist. Some Protestants think it is symbol alone. Others think it is symbolic and also a vehicle of the Holy Spirit. Others hold to consubstantiation. Others relativistically hold (like I used to) that there is no difference between any of these Eucharists. All of these are different views on something described by Jesus as extremely important to salvation.
3. The nature of sanctification. Nazarenes hold it is a separate spiritual experience in which one is saved from the presence of any sin, rather than an ongoing process of purification. Others believe we are “once saved, always saved,” and don’t have to worry at all. And no amount of sin can separate us from our salvation. Thus there can be (though this is certainly not always the case) a leniency toward sin among these circles.
4. The Born Again experience. An enormous source of disagreement and friction, and necessary for salvation, according to Scripture.
5. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Another enormous source of disagreement and friction within Protestantism- and another crucial element of salvation, according to Scripture.
6. Cleansing of sins. There are many disagreements among Protestants as to what “sin” is, or if it exists. Fornication, homosexuality, abortion and others are accepted by large numbers of Protestants. While many Catholics also accept these evils, they do this in defiance of a clear Church teaching. In Protestantism, people instead argue over the correct interpretation of the Scripture verses that appear to refer to these sins, or whether or not the Bible should be taken literally on these matters, etc.

All these things are necessary elements of salvation, according to Scripture, yet there are major disagreements within Protestantism as to what they mean, whereas in Catholicism we have clear and official teaching.

The number of denominations in Protestantism is ever-increasing, the number of division growing larger and larger, and speaking as a former non-denominational Protestant, I know that in non-denominational Christianity, private doctrinal interpretation can result in even more radical and off-target perspectives.

The push in Christianity against “organized religion” is very big, and in Protestantism it is leading large numbers of people to reject membership in any denomination.

When Christians separate themselves from denominations, they become separated even more from traditional Christianity, and very strange interpretations of the Bible can result. I see this as actually a more pure form of Sola Scriptura, in the sense that it relies more exclusively on personal interpretations of the Bible. Denominations tend to have more traditional interpretation that comes from Catholicism influencing their thinking. Among non-denominational Christians I’ve met, I’ve encountered the following beliefs:

1. Community prayer has no value except for the confirmation other believers can provide that one is hearing the Spirit truly.
2. Humans and the Fallen Angels were first made by God with a predisposition to sin inherent in their natures from the very beginning of their existence, before they actually chose sin.
3. There is no physical resurrection of the dead. Only spiritual.
4. Jesus Christ was not physically resurrected from the dead- only spiritually.
5. There is no Hell- only Purgatory and Heaven.
6. There is no Trinity.

Those are extremely non-traditional views, and I’ve heard them from non-denominational Christians. In my experience, non-denominational Christians, people who rely much more exclusively (which is what I meant by “more purely”) upon “Sola Scriptura,” rather than traditions, stumble into ever greater and greater errors. There is no fence to rein them in like there is in denominations. Though the denominations themselves have been splintering and disintegrating more and more.

If the Scripture was self-interpreting, its meaning obvious, we wouldn’t be seeing throughout the history of Protestantism a tendency toward greater and greater splintering. We wouldn’t see thousands of denominations and huge disagreements of interpretation on the basic steps of salvation for the soul.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Please hear me carefully here. I am attracted to many aspects of Roman Catholicism but, in the end, I could not in deepest conscience convert to the RC faith. Why? Because, at the end of the day I believe that the scripture in an objective sense is clear enough in itself and is its own interpreter. This flies in the face of the RC belief that special revelation is necessary, in the form of the teaching Magisterium, for the Christian to understand the scriptures.

In my view, there is nothing esoteric about the interpretation of scripture; there are no secret meanings in scripture.

The teachings of the Catholic councils are neither “esoteric” nor “secret meanings.” Here’s a list of the dogmas. It’s not a complete list, I believe, but it’s a good sample of the dogmas of the Church. I encourage you to read through at least part of it. See for yourself .
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

The interpretation of scripture is a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:10).

I’m sorry, but 1 Corinthians 12:10 says nothing about interpretation of scripture. It doesn’t even mention scripture. It says the Spirit can give people prophecy or discernment of spirits, or miracles, tongues or the interpretation of tongues, but the statement that the Spirit can give “discernment of spirits” isn’t the same as saying He gives as a gift to individual believers the “interpretation of Scripture.”

I have been honest with you. I am always honest. This is where I stand. I do not, however, belittle your authentic christian understanding and experience. I respect Catholics. However, this is a discussion forum and it is good for us as Christians to genuinely hear and listen to one another.

I agree .

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

No matter which side is right, I don’t see how the existence of that controversy shows an inconsistency in infallible Catholic teaching. The debate over Vatican 2 doesn’t have anything to do with the Church’s infallibility. I don’t understand your position on this at all.

Lots of Christians think the Bible isn’t inerrant. Does that make it not inerrant? What people incorrectly think of it doesn’t change its actual nature or status.

If lots of Catholics have incorrect views about Vatican II, how does that effect its actual status? Not at all. It just means lots of private individuals are making mistakes. That does not in any way relate to the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility.

These are issues of Church discipline, not Church infallibility. There is a huge difference.

Individual Catholics – take all those pedophile priests, for instance – can certainly fail to properly follow the Church’s authoritative teaching. That doesn’t negate the complete truth of the teaching itself.

The Church’s leaders can make mistakes in not disciplining its members rigorously enough. It also is very forgiving, though, and slow to throw out disobedient children. Perhaps it is too slow to do this.

Those are matters of discipline. There can be errors in the application of Church discipline and in the behaviors or beliefs of individual Church members. That doesn’t mean there is error in the infallible doctrine of the Church itself.

There never was an official, dogmatic statement on limbo. There has never been an infallible teaching offered about limbo at all, either in support of it or in rejection of it. So the Church has shown no infallible inconsistency as regards limbo.

There are a few things that should be said about this.

First, there is a lot of ignorance among Catholics about official Catholic teaching on the nature of Hell. Therefore errors on the part of laypeople are bound to happen. That in no way negates the infallible teaching about Hell that exists.

Second, many people use the writings of saints or their own theories to elaborate further on the official Catholic teaching that exists about Hell. Differences between these views does not matter. This territory has not been infallibly defined, so no infallible inconsistency exists here. And no disagreement with infallible teaching appears here either. Catholics are perfectly at liberty to elaborate further in their beliefs on these matters that have not been dogmatically defined.

Third, even if all Catholics disagreed with infallible Church teaching, this would not make the teaching itself fallible. It would show merely an inconsistency of belief, not an inconsistency of infallible teaching.

None of the inconsistencies you’ve listed are inconsistencies between infallible teachings. All of them are inconsistencies or failings in the behavior or beliefs of Catholic people. Catholics are human and can fall into error, deviating from Church teaching through ignorance or conceit. Church leaders also can sometimes also fail in sufficiently disciplining their flocks. Personal, non-infallible theories can rise and fall in the Church. What you have listed is a variety of forms of human error within the Church. We believe human error does indeed exist in individual Church members and even very large numbers of Catholics can make mistakes or go astray. But the councils or popes themselves, when teaching dogma ex cathedra, do not go astray.

Please explain to me how you think these sources, “inspiration, inscripturation and canonisation,” provide theological grounds for Sola Scriptura.

Scripture itself is able to fix in a believer a firm confidence in its divine message. This firm confidence does not depend on any other source - including Sacred Tradition so -called or the interpretations of the Roman Catholic Magisterium - besides scripture itself.

The very nature of scripture is marked by:

1. It’s inspiration (inerrancy)
2. It’s inscripturation (how God used holy men to pen His word)
3. It’s canonisation (how the apostolic church knew the true writings)

The nature and design of scripture bear testimony to its self-authenticating power, which is the essence of sola scriptura.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief, I have read your post with interest.

The point of the scriptures I have quoted is to demonstrate, with clarity, the self-authenticating power of scripture. In my opinion, these scriptures bear abundant testimony to this concept.

The scriptures are inerrant, in the original autographs. In this affirmation you agree with me.

Where we differ is that I view the inerrant scriptures as self-authenticating - this is the essence of sola scripture; you view the inerrant scriptures not as self-authenticating but needing the special interpretation of the Roman Catholic Magisterium to make their meaning clear. This latter view I reject as being inconsistent with the scriptures testimony concerning its self-authenticating power.

This is the watershed difference between us.

I showed how each of those verses did not say the Scripture is sole standard and arbiter of doctrine. That was my main point. I know we disagree right now, but I’d appreciate you showing me how these verses contradict the points I made about each of them.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR CINETTE,

Here is what you said in one of your posts on the character of the Roman Catholic Church. You state:

“God, in Jesus tells us ”all authority has been given to me” This authority he passed on to his Apostles who with the prophets formed the foundation of the Church. This Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” 1 Tim3:15. The leaders of this Church, Peter and his successors, the Apostles and the Bishops have clearly had this authority passed on to them. See Matt 16:18-19 and other texts. So Pope Damasus indeed had supreme authority. This has been accepted by history and the Church down the ages. Who are you now to tell us that this is not so!”

You actually state that Pope Damasus had supreme authority and that this has been accepted by history and the Church down the ages.

I politely say, this is mere presumption. Can I point out that the reign of the popes has been highly controversial and rejected by large numbers of historical and ecclessiatical scholars. You have a tendency to make large, general sweepong statements and merely assume your position.

There are many people who disagree with your conclusions. You need to furnish documented proof to support historical affirmations.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Scripture itself is able to fix in a believer a firm confidence in its divine message.

That’s what the Mormons say too, and use this as a justification for the inclusion of their Book of Mormon. Firm confidence is not a good enough witness.

This firm confidence does not depend on any other source - including Sacred Tradition so -called or the interpretations of the Roman Catholic Magisterium - besides scripture itself.

The very nature of scripture is marked by:

1. It’s inspiration (inerrancy)

This is an extra-Biblical justification for Sola Scriptura. The Church declared in three Early Church councils what books belonged in the canon, by its authority ending the canon disagreements for the Universal Church.

1. It’s inscripturation (how God used holy men to pen His word)

The belief that these men were holy to the ends of their lives comes solely from extra-Biblical Tradition.

1. It’s canonisation (how the apostolic church knew the true writings)

Er . . . Interestingly, no Early Church Father’s canon list exactly matches the current Protestant canon. Some of them are very similar to the current Protestant canon, but none of them match it exactly. Also, the canon that the Church ended up settling on in its councils included the Deuterocanonical books. So none of the Early Church Fathers had a list that exactly matched the Protestant canon, and the Early Church councils themselves resulted in canons that differed from the Protestant canon. So I don’t know where you’re coming from here. The Early Church Fathers had lots of different lists and opinions on what books should be in the canon. There were a great variety of opinions on the matter. And the canon the Early Church settled on is the one the Catholic Church uses.

The opinions of the Early Church, councils and Fathers alike, also are an extra-Biblical source. Tradition.

The nature and design of scripture bear testimony to its self-authenticating power, which is the essence of sola scriptura.

The self-authentication of scripture is not in the Bible! I have yet to see a verse that says the Bible is self-authenticating. I’d really appreciate some exposition from you of some of the verses you gave, so that I can see where and how they say scripture is self-authenticating. I offered some exposition already, showing how those verses don’t say anything about self-authentication of scripture – some don’t even mention the scripture – and those that do speak clearly about the scripture simply say what its value is. But they never say it is the final and sole standard of doctrine. So I’d really appreciate some exposition from you showing me how that is not so.

I do appreciate the time you are taking to get to know more of our beliefs on this website, by the way. Thank-you also for the great respect you have shown Catholics.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You actually state that Pope Damasus had supreme authority and that this has been accepted by history and the Church down the ages.

I politely say, this is mere presumption. Can I point out that the reign of the popes has been highly controversial and rejected by large numbers of historical and ecclessiatical scholars. You have a tendency to make large, general sweepong statements and merely assume your position.

There are many people who disagree with your conclusions. You need to furnish documented proof to support historical affirmations.

These quotations from the Early Church Fathers show the great ancient authority of the bishops of Rome. These writings are history. If some modern scholars want to disagree with the ancient writers about Early Church practice, that’s their problem.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

The authority of the Papacy is also Biblical.

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy

Peter is always listed first among the Apostles except in Galations 2:9.

Places where Peter is listed first:
Matthew 10:2
Mt 26:37 Jesus takes Peter (listed first) and the two sons of Zebedee with him during the Agony in the Garden.
Mk 1:16 Peter listed first among the call of the first disciples
Mk 1:36 Peter, listed first, is the one to find Jesus leaving Capernaum
Mk 3:16 Peter listed first in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas mentioned last).
Mk 5:37 Jesus does not allow anyone to accompany Him inside the synagogue except Peter (listed first), James, and John.
Mk 9:2 Peter listed first among the 3 disciples to witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Mk 13:3 Peter listed first among disciples
Mk 14:33 Peter listed first among the disciples in the Garden
Lk 6:14 Peter listed first among apostles in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas is listed last).
Lk 8:51 Peter listed first among disciples allowed to enter the synagogue with Jesus.
Lk 9:28 Peter listed first among disciples who witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Jn 21:2 Peter listed first among the seven disciples in the resurrection appearance in Galilee
Acts 2:37, 1:3, Peter mentioned first among the apostles.
Acts 3:1 Peter listed first
Acts 4:13 Peter named first
Acts 4:19 Peter named first, and again speaks before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:29 Peter named first among apostles and speaks as leader
Acts 8:14 Peter named first
1 Cor 15:5 Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears first to Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles

Also, the scripture refers to “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing that he had a special position of authority amongst them.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Other scriptures showing or suggesting Peter’s authority:

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

In addition:
In Isaiah chapter 22, Isaiah the great Prophet of Israel is pronouncing judgment, displacing Shebna, the royal steward of the king and appointing Eliakim to succeed him as the steward. The office of steward was a permanent office within the Eastern kingdoms. The “steward” or the one “over the house” or the “master of the palace” was second to the king. The person who was “over the house” had the whole of the domestic affairs of the sovereign under his superintendence. The steward ruled in the place or in the absence of the king… The king’s steward in Isaiah is clearly the backdrop against which the Lord Jesus proclaims Peter the keeper of the keys in Matthew 16. (Upon This Rock, p. 38-39).

Isaiah 22:20-23:
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mathew 16: 16-19)

 

[Cinette]

I do not doubt there is much truth in what the Church Fathers wrote. I do not even doubt that they still have value as a witness today, in giving interpretative clues to difficult passages of scripture and unlocking key historical information.

However, you are still evading my questions, Cinette. Please relax - I stress again I am not anti-Catholic as such. I can agree with a lot of Catholic teaching on many subjects, although there are some significant differences too. I am a MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT - I am not a FUNDAMENTALIST! Can you please, then, in this context respond to my question:

Were the Church Fathers infallible in their utterances and inerrant in their doctrinal propositions?

Cheers, In Christ Craig

By what standard do you doubt the truth and how do you measure your relative truth?

I am waiting for your answer so that we can proceed.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

If that is the case, then why are there over 30,000 Protestant denominations and counting?

Also, the differences between these denominations frequently rush into areas that are extremely important for salvation. These include:

1. The transforming power of baptism. Many Protestants think it is symbol only. Others think that it has real power to save. There also are differences over infant baptism, which are important if baptism is much more than a mere symbol, as many think. Baptism is crucial to salvation, and there are major disagreements about it.
2. The nature of the Eucharist. Some Protestants think it is symbol alone. Others think it is symbolic and also a vehicle of the Holy Spirit. Others hold to consubstantiation. Others relativistically hold (like I used to) that there is no difference between any of these Eucharists. All of these are different views on something described by Jesus as extremely important to salvation.
3. The nature of sanctification. Nazarenes hold it is a separate spiritual experience in which one is saved from the presence of any sin, rather than an ongoing process of purification. Others believe we are “once saved, always saved,” and don’t have to worry at all. And no amount of sin can separate us from our salvation. Thus there can be (though this is certainly not always the case) a leniency toward sin among these circles.
4. The Born Again experience. An enormous source of disagreement and friction, and necessary for salvation, according to Scripture.
5. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Another enormous source of disagreement and friction within Protestantism- and another crucial element of salvation, according to Scripture.
6. Cleansing of sins. There are many disagreements among Protestants as to what “sin” is, or if it exists. Fornication, homosexuality, abortion and others are accepted by large numbers of Protestants. While many Catholics also accept these evils, they do this in defiance of a clear Church teaching. In Protestantism, people instead argue over the correct interpretation of the Scripture verses that appear to refer to these sins, or whether or not the Bible should be taken literally on these matters, etc.

All these things are necessary elements of salvation, according to Scripture, yet there are major disagreements within Protestantism as to what they mean, whereas in Catholicism we have clear and official teaching.

The number of denominations in Protestantism is ever-increasing, the number of division growing larger and larger, and speaking as a former non-denominational Protestant, I know that in non-denominational Christianity, private doctrinal interpretation can result in even more radical and off-target perspectives.

The push in Christianity against “organized religion” is very big, and in Protestantism it is leading large numbers of people to reject membership in any denomination.

When Christians separate themselves from denominations, they become separated even more from traditional Christianity, and very strange interpretations of the Bible can result. I see this as actually a more pure form of Sola Scriptura, in the sense that it relies more exclusively on personal interpretations of the Bible. Denominations tend to have more traditional interpretation that comes from Catholicism influencing their thinking. Among non-denominational Christians I’ve met, I’ve encountered the following beliefs:

1. Community prayer has no value except for the confirmation other believers can provide that one is hearing the Spirit truly.
2. Humans and the Fallen Angels were first made by God with a predisposition to sin inherent in their natures from the very beginning of their existence, before they actually chose sin.
3. There is no physical resurrection of the dead. Only spiritual.
4. Jesus Christ was not physically resurrected from the dead- only spiritually.
5. There is no Hell- only Purgatory and Heaven.
6. There is no Trinity.

Those are extremely non-traditional views, and I’ve heard them from non-denominational Christians. In my experience, non-denominational Christians, people who rely much more exclusively (which is what I meant by “more purely”) upon “Sola Scriptura,” rather than traditions, stumble into ever greater and greater errors. There is no fence to rein them in like there is in denominations. Though the denominations themselves have been splintering and disintegrating more and more.

If the Scripture was self-interpreting, its meaning obvious, we wouldn’t be seeing throughout the history of Protestantism a tendency toward greater and greater splintering. We wouldn’t see thousands of denominations and huge disagreements of interpretation on the basic steps of salvation for the soul.

The splintering in Protestantism is sad and I, for one, share your grief over it. It is this splintering that I believe causes many people to convert to Catholicism.

There are many reasons for this splintering. Obviously, the Church Militant (on earth) is not the Church Triumphant (in heaven) yet; she fights against sin, satan and the world. The pressures of the world’s system of entertainment, materialism and success at all costs mitigates against the Church’s calling to be holy. There is human error, sin and failing in the church. There is the lust of the eyes and the pride of life that renders the church weak and ineffective, at times.

The answer lies in better exegesis and application of the scriptures. Scripture never assigns this interpretative ability to a special Magisterium but to a special people of God, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the true priesthood of all believers.

That is why, I could never convert to Roman Catholicism; the scriptures never delegate their self-authenticating power to a Magisterium.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The teachings of the Catholic councils are neither “esoteric” nor “secret meanings.” Here’s a list of the dogmas. It’s not a complete list, I believe, but it’s a good sample of the dogmas of the Church. I encourage you to read through at least part of it. See for yourself .
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

I’m sorry, but 1 Corinthians 12:10 says nothing about interpretation of scripture. It doesn’t even mention scripture. It says the Spirit can give people prophecy or discernment of spirits, or miracles, tongues or the interpretation of tongues, but the statement that the Spirit can give “discernment of spirits” isn’t the same as saying He gives as a gift to individual believers the “interpretation of Scripture.”

I agree .

Thanks for a list of the dogmas of the Church. I’ll follow through and try to read my wat through them.

 

[Cinette]

It was not the RCC that wrote the Bible, period. The NT was written by the Apostles and/or their helpers through the inspiration of God. There was no Catholic church in them days.

They are considered extra even in history, not just recently.

I can and I was a Catholic for 10 years and I am not a fundamentalist so please don’t assume. I don’t care what big mucky muck wrote that list it still would not be accurate.

No it hasn’t another catholic invention

I chose the name because of certain periods I admire in history, you have a very bad habit of assuming things. I am sorry to hear your a revert I will pray that God will enlighten you so you may leave that man based stuff and return to a true relationship with Christ.

You are full of anger and it comes out in your responses.

You just make statements. You do not back anything you say. Something happened to make you so angry.

I hope you learn something from this thread and that you pray about your anger.

 

[ron77nyc]

:If lots of Catholics have incorrect views about Vatican II, how does that effect its actual status? Not at all. It just means lots of private individuals are making mistakes. That does not in any way relate to the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility.

There never was an official, dogmatic statement on limbo. There has never been an infallible teaching offered about limbo at all, either in support of it or in rejection of it. So the Church has shown no infallible inconsistency as regards limbo.

But the councils or popes themselves, when teaching dogma ex cathedra, do not go astray.

Limbo has been a church doctrine since the days of Augustine. It was passed down from the first council to the present and it remains in the catechism today. The only difference is there was no hope of salvation in the past and now there is hope for the unbaptized. In the past everyone got the message: “Get your children baptized as soon as possible.” So how can you say it never was official?

Vatican II was a very confusing council. The sixties were a very confusing time in general. It does seem that the Church gives itself wiggle room when it wants to change its position. The problem with claiming to be infallible means that if an error was made you have to stay with it or find a clever explanation for it or do both at the same time.

 

[guanophore]

It was not the RCC that wrote the Bible, period. The NT was written by the Apostles and/or their helpers through the inspiration of God. There was no Catholic church in them days.

News flash, historyb, the Apostles and their disciples were what comprised the Catholic Church. There was no other Church. While I will concede that the NT was written before the Roman Rite developed, the Church was most definitely Catholic. It was One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic.

There was no recognized collection of believers that were not in union with the Apostles, and the beliefs of that Church was the same throughout the world. This is what Catholic means.

" "Meanwhile t**he church throughout **Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers. "

These words in Gk = ecclesia kathoholos mean “the church throughout” = universal. The Gk is transliterated catholic. This has been the description of the Church from the beginning.

Why is it so important to you to deny these plain facts of history? What resentment do you have toward the Roman Rite of Catholicism that prevents you from accepting what is clearly written here in scripture, and in the Fathers?

They are considered extra even in history, not just recently.

If you believe this, then you have been studying a warped history. consider studying the history of the Septuagint.

I can and I was a Catholic for 10 years and I am not a fundamentalist so please don’t assume. I don’t care what big mucky muck wrote that list it still would not be accurate.

I am not sure you were ever “catholic”. You may have been poorly catechized, or not tauht about your faith at all. Anyone who has been Catholic will know that the NT church is Catholic, and is the same church that exists today (though it is very different in appearance).

No it hasn’t another catholic invention

You seem to have a lot of resentment against Catholicism. How did this happen? What do you think Jesus intended when He changed the name of Simon bar Jona?

I chose the name because of certain periods I admire in history, you have a very bad habit of assuming things. I am sorry to hear your a revert I will pray that God will enlighten you so you may leave that man based stuff and return to a true relationship with Christ.

historyb, this comment is a clear violation of the forum rules, which require that you respect the Catholic faith, and refrain from attempting to pull Catholics away from the faith. Please reconsider why you are here at CAF.

To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[guanophore]

The point of the scriptures I have quoted is to demonstrate, with clarity, the self-authenticating power of scripture. In my opinion, these scriptures bear abundant testimony to this concept.

How do you suppose the Magesterium discerned between the 27 books that comprise the NT and the 400+ documents floating about at the time, many claiming to be Apostolic? Why is the Epistle of Barnabas not included? Why not the Didache, which is shown to have originated before the gospel of John? Why know the Gospel of Thoma

Where we differ is that I view the inerrant scriptures as self-authenticating - this is the essence of sola scripture; you view the inerrant scriptures not as self-authenticating but needing the special interpretation of the Roman Catholic Magisterium to make their meaning clear. This latter view I reject as being inconsistent with the scriptures testimony concerning its self-authenticating power.

What distinguishes the books as self authenticating is not the same as interpretation of them. We all read and interpret scripture in the light of our perspectives and education (or lack of it). As a history buff, then you will agree that understanding history is a great aid in understanding what the scriptures mean.

It is also essential to read them using the same lens the people used that wrote them. This is Catholic.

This is the watershed difference between us.

Indeed! How did you come to be so separated from the Apostolic Teaching?