Sola Scriptura - is it rational and historical?

[GandalfTheWhite]

This thread is an offshoot of this thread about Sacramental Priesthood and is aimed specifically at Afterburned6387. Of course other people can participate.

So, Afterburned, here are some questions I would like you to answer about the assumption called Sola Scriptura. But before let’s pray to the Holy Spirit so he will help us to see the truth.

1. Before the first scriptures were written and before the Bible existed, did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura exist or was it something else?
2. Did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura exist in the early church? If yes, how so? And do you have any evidence for that claim (such as works of the early Church Fathers, who however clearly oppose it)?
3. How was Sola Scriptura used (if you think it was) in an environment where most people couldn’t read and the very few Bibles that existed were too expensive for anyone to afford them (to the extend that they had to be chained in churches so nobody would steal them)?
4. If Sola Scriptura is supposed to be practiced, it must be the will of God. Since Sola Scriptura doctrine was simply impossible and clearly wasn’t practiced (unless you prove otherwise) for the first 1500 years (until about the invention of the printing technology), how could it be God’s will? Why would God ask us to do something that is impossible?
5. And did it take 1500 years to discover the Truth?
6. Don’t you think that it’s a little bit contradictory to adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine when the doctrine itself can’t be supported by the Bible (unless you prove otherwise)?
7. When people who read the Bible see many different things and it produces much disunity, doesn’t it by itself suggest that it is a false and dangerous doctrine that actually leads people away from the One Truth?

I would love to hear your answers.

In Christ,
~G

 

[Afterburned6387]

You know, the biggest reason why Sola Scriptura is so vital to me has little to do with history and so much to do with practicality.

I can put up vigorous strictly scriptural arguments for the entirety of my faith.

The Catholic church, cannot.

The Catholic church’s position, as I’ve heard it said in many places, is either

1. Scriptures and Tradition are equal, and one interprets the other
2. Tradition trumps scriptures, it merely is a supplement

If the first was true, then why does scripture yell in opposition to many key catholic doctrines?

If the second is true, I will take no part in such a church. It has become a Fraternity…not a faith.

As for history, The longest stretch of history that Catholics use to slam the idea of Sola Scripura also neatly coincides with its apex of political power, i.e. 850AD to 1500 AD.

The reason these dates are important, is the forged Donation of Constantine gave the church the papal states and the Lateran palace in 850 AD. (I can’t believe that Christ’s church on earth would have an earthy kingdom, but yet, there were papal states, and at one point, the Catholic Church owned a sizeable percentage of all land in England)

The end date coincides with the end of political power. The reformation had been going on since 1100 A.D. religiously, it only came to a head when even Romish monks could no longer take the abuses.

I also find it hard to trust a church that has more often found itself in the role of “persecuter” rather than “persecuted,” as Jesus promised all Christians would be.

John 15:20 states: “Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”

These persecutions are not even limited to the Inquisition. I will admit the validity of Vatican research that has uncovered that only hundreds, not thousands were executed during the Inquisition (ONLY hundreds?)

In addition, entire villages were put to the sword in the Albigensian Crusade, and thousands more Anabaptists were mercilessly slaughtered by local church authorities (Read “Martyr’s Mirror”, the history is horribly biased, but the letters are extremely convicting)

During the reign of Bloody Mary, another few hundred were slain for the high crimes of denying transubstantiation, and rejecting papal authority. Even the Archbishop of Cantebury was burned at the stake!

(in a related story, 53 catholics, including clergymen, cooked up a plot at the behest of the pope to remove the Protestant King that replaced bloody mary, the plot was uncovered, and they were put to death…they now are listed by the Catholic church as martyrs…can you really be called a martyr if you were executed for TREASON?)

Even to the present day, the Catholic Church has been all too willing to strike hands in pledge with those that would harm people. Ever wonder why the Pope has such sweet digs? Its because he signed a treaty with Mussolini, which gave them the Vatican State, in return for Papal support of fascism (Lateran Treaty of 1929)

I’ve even been told that the RCC has reformed itself, that it is no longer the beast it once was, but yet I find in current canon law, posted on the vatican state webpage, previsions for both continued sale of indulgences, and provisions to confiscate property from those who oppose the Catholic church.

Praise be to God that literacy and the printing press has returned the faith to those whom it belongs to!

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”
Luke 4:18-19

The faith has run from the art and gold filled cage of St. Peter’s Basilica, and returned to those who for hundreds of years were oppressed under papal thumbs!

We are free, again, to reason in the temple courts in the proud tradition of the Godly men who have come before! And to use our God -given intellect and our God-given Scripture to rebuild the faith!

Every time I hear a defense of Apostolic Succession and Tradition, it seems to ring very hollow in the chambers of history which supposedly attest to it.

 

[Afterburned6387]

I would even be willing to include tradition in the Christian faith, so long as it submits to the God who is still speaking to us through scripture, but the fact of the matter is, when I present my arguments in other threads, that is scripture leading to scripture, each one painting the picture of the faith that looks nothing like the RCC, instead of presenting more valid counter-arguments, they throw Apostolic Succession in my face, and misquote texts out of context. If Scripture is “God Breathed” (2 Tim 3:16), shouldn’t God have the final say in our faith?

History, the supposed great Pillar of the Roman Catholic Church yells that Apostolic Succession, in estimation of history, has failed miserably.

As for the contention that Scripture has somehow been corrupted, what better way to make a faith in your own liking than that?

Besides, its the same reason Muslims say that Ishmael, and not Issac was almost sacrificed, corruption of scripture…

As for the early church fathers. I respect their writings, I have even read some portions of Summa Theologica, and St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises, but the idea that somehow they got EVERYTHING right, seems a bit silly to me. Shouldn’t we stand on the shoulders of the Giants that have come before? Instead, the RCC assumes they figured it all out, and did so perfectly, to challenge anything they say is to challenge the faith itself (an argument I would say is only valid for those contradicting the Holy Scriptures).

I am willing to admit that my positions and beliefs may be in error. I do so because I know I am mere man, and prone to error

Until the Catholic church is willing to admit it may be in error (not is, but that that possibility exists), I can no longer hope for a Reformed Catholic Church, but only stick to my protestant roots.
Furthermore, all discussion becomes meaningless. The Romish Church is only accepting surrenders today, not dialogue.

 

[cpayne]

I would even be willing to include tradition in the Christian faith, so long as it submits to the God who is still speaking to us through scripture,

Dear A6387, Your first post mentioned this: “I can put up vigorous strictly scriptural arguments for the entirety of my faith.” Actually, I don’t think that’s possible, unless you are willing to leave out or ignore all the scriptures pointing to an oral transmission of the Word of the Lord, Paul’s references to the “traditions,” and so on. Perhaps you can give Scripture references for all your faith, but only if your faith leaves out the oral transmission of the tradition. As soon as you accept the God-directed transmission of the tradition, you run out of proof texts. Just one often-used example: Show me all the proof texts listing, book by book, what’s supposed to be in the Bible—the very Bible supposedly containing “the entirety of my faith”!

However, running out of proof texts isn’t really a problem for a living breathing Christian in fellowship with the living breathing Church. The part of your second post in the block quote above is one of the reasons I came around to the CC’s way of thinking on this. I realized two things: (1) The Holy Spirit lives in people; if the Holy Spirit were really going to be living in and directing the Church, there had to be an avenue for the Holy Spirit to move through. That avenue would have to be something like a still-living tradition. (2) As far as God speaking through His Word: of course He does. However, you and I still need a historical guideline to keep us from spiralling off into some weird private interpretation or another. It’s not that Scripture has to submit to tradition; it’s that our private interpretations of Scripture should be willing to submit to the traditional authority of the Church. If we are not willing to do so, we become sectarian and divisive (and probably will blame the division on that authoritarian Church!).

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You know, the biggest reason why Sola Scriptura is so vital to me has little to do with history and so much to do with practicality.

Practicality? Well Mormons probably find using their added book practical. Practicality (especially when it comes to you alone) has nothing to do with reality or simply the Truth. I was hoping you would explain to me why Sola Scriptura doesn’t make historically any sense at all.

I can put up vigorous strictly scriptural arguments for the entirety of my faith.

So do unitarians and JW’s. Or so they believe.
Simply because you use the Bible to support your position has once again nothing to do with whether you’re interpreting the verses correctly - according with what it was meant to mean.

The Catholic church, cannot.

And is that bad? It is only if you allow the Sola Scriptura assumption to dictate.

Anyways, I will not address everything right now because I’m going to bed. But let me be honest, I was expecting that you would answer my questions or at least attempt to do so, instead criticizing the Church. These questions are vital because if they can’t be rationally explained then I can’t see how your Sola Scriptura assumption can hold. Sorry to be this honest but up to now I simply think that you are choosing to be blind to the problems of Sola Scriptura because you think that you would have nowhere to go. Am I not correct?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

You know, the biggest reason why Sola Scriptura is so vital to me has little to do with history and so much to do with practicality.

Affective fallacy.

Afterburned6387:

I can put up vigorous strictly scriptural arguments for the entirety of my faith.

How can we verify this? Without substantiation this is no more than your opinion.

Afterburned6387:

The Catholic church, cannot.

Your opinion.

Afterburned6387:

The Catholic church’s position, as I’ve heard it said in many places, is either

Is ‘many places’ a credible source?

Afterburned6387:

1. Scriptures and Tradition are equal, and one interprets the other
2. Tradition trumps scriptures, it merely is a supplement

Is it ‘practical’ not to refer to the Catechism?

Afterburned6387:

If the first was true, then why does scripture yell in opposition to many key catholic doctrines?

Perhaps it is not scripture yelling.

Afterburned6387:

If the second is true, I will take no part in such a church. It has become a Fraternity…not a faith.

So what’s the problem? That is your personal choice. Oh, is it other people? How do other people factor in? I notice you are posting on CAF. Is that somehow connected to ‘other people’ in some mysterious way? Can you illuminate us please? Thank you.

Afterburned6387:

As for history, The longest stretch of history that Catholics use to slam the idea of Sola Scripura also neatly coincides with its apex of political power, i.e. 850AD to 1500 AD.

I’ve never heard this. The period we usually use is from the death and resurrection of Christ to the Wittenburg Plague. That, I believe, is longer than the period you so hopefully cite. I am surprised that, with the astonishing amount of information we have given you, you have not noticed this rather stupendous amount of time for which the Reformers cannot account.

Afterburned6387:

The reason these dates are important, is the forged Donation of Constantine gave the church the papal states and the Lateran palace in 850 AD. (I can’t believe that Christ’s church on earth would have an earthy kingdom, but yet, there were papal states, and at one point, the Catholic Church owned a sizeable percentage of all land in England)

And?

Afterburned6387:

The end date coincides with the end of political power. The reformation had been going on since 1100 A.D. religiously, it only came to a head when even Romish monks could no longer take the abuses.

Wrong.

Afterburned6387:

I also find it hard to trust a church that has more often found itself in the role of “persecuter” rather than “persecuted,” as Jesus promised all Christians would be.

Gosh, is it ‘practical’ to lodge extravagant allegations against your chosen opponent without any substantiation at all? As for finding it hard to trust, well it is sometimes. And folks who find it hard to trust often lash out at the nearest authority figure. The Catholic Church is always near so we more often than not get the brunt of the lashing out. Oh well.

Afterburned6387:

John 15:20 states: “Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”

Yep, we can relate. We get persecuted on a daily basis. Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

These persecutions are not even limited to the Inquisition. I will admit the validity of Vatican research that has uncovered that only hundreds, not thousands were executed during the Inquisition (ONLY hundreds?)

It looks like you are trying to cover the whole of Western history in one thread. That’s a bit much, don’t you think. That’s going to mean a lot of reading. And a lot of linking. Since you have not yet given us a link, I am wondering if you are up to it. Are you?

Afterburned6387:

In addition, entire villages were put to the sword in the Albigensian Crusade, and thousands more Anabaptists were mercilessly slaughtered by local church authorities (Read “Martyr’s Mirror”, the history is horribly biased, but the letters are extremely convicting)

I don’t see any letters. Do you? Anyone?

Afterburned6387:

During the reign of Bloody Mary, another few hundred were slain for the high crimes of denying transubstantiation, and rejecting papal authority. Even the Archbishop of Cantebury was burned at the stake!

Somewhat selective given that particular little chapter in history, don’t you think?

(in a related story, 53 catholics, including clergymen, cooked up a plot at the behest of the pope to remove the Protestant King that replaced bloody mary, the plot was uncovered, and they were put to death…they now are listed by the Catholic church as martyrs…can you really be called a martyr if you were executed for TREASON?)

How do you define martyrdom?

Afterburned6387:

Even to the present day, the Catholic Church has been all too willing to strike hands in pledge with those that would harm people.

Like who?

Afterburned6387:

Ever wonder why the Pope has such sweet digs?

Because people offered up their genius?

Afterburned6387:

Its because he signed a treaty with Mussolini, which gave them the Vatican State, in return for Papal support of fascism (Lateran Treaty of 1929)

Tell us about why he signed the treaty.

Afterburned6387:

I’ve even been told that the RCC has reformed itself, that it is no longer the beast it once was, but yet I find in current canon law, posted on the vatican state webpage, previsions for both continued sale of indulgences, and provisions to confiscate property from those who oppose the Catholic church.

Which vatican page? Is ‘I’ve even been told’ a credible source? Can we link to it?

Afterburned6387:

Praise be to God that literacy and the printing press has returned the faith to those whom it belongs to!

What about the illiterate?

Afterburned6387:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”
Luke 4:18-19

How many of the poor can read?

Afterburned6387:

The faith has run from the art and gold filled cage of St. Peter’s Basilica, and returned to those who for hundreds of years were oppressed under papal thumbs!

When was this?

Afterburned6387:

We are free, again, to reason in the temple courts in the proud tradition of the Godly men who have come before! And to use our God -given intellect and our God-given Scripture to rebuild the faith!

God-given intellect? Well I guess the gauntlet is down now.

Afterburned6387:

Every time I hear a defense of Apostolic Succession and Tradition, it seems to ring very hollow in the chambers of history which supposedly attest to it.

Are you sure its the chambers of history which are ringing hollow?

 

[jburgherr]

Sola Scriptura is an argument of authority. Esentially, who is the “foundation and pillar of truth”. The Church or the bible. Well, the bible says the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. So that seems the Bible disagrees with the Sola Scriptura folks.

The sola scriptura folkes need to ask themselves over and over again…which came first: The Church or the Bible. .

 

[Bishopite]

You know, the biggest reason why Sola Scriptura is so vital to me has little to do with history and so much to do with practicality.

Isn’t history practicality?

I can put up vigorous strictly scriptural arguments for the entirety of my faith.

 

[Bishopite]

Afterburned6387:

These persecutions are not even limited to the Inquisition. I will admit the validity of Vatican research that has uncovered that only hundreds, not thousands were executed during the Inquisition (ONLY hundreds?)

And how about Micheal Serevetus who John Calvin had hung for heresy in Geneva? And did you know that Zwingli died with a sword in his hand? So much for Protestant passive christ-likeisms.

In addition, entire villages were put to the sword in the Albigensian Crusade, and thousands more Anabaptists were mercilessly slaughtered by local church authorities (Read “Martyr’s Mirror”, the history is horribly biased, but the letters are extremely convicting)

Again, what about John Calvin and Zwingli. The Anabaptists also fought against other Protestants. And you follow a Calvinist church??

During the reign of Bloody Mary, another few hundred were slain for the high crimes of denying transubstantiation, and rejecting papal authority. Even the Archbishop of Cantebury was burned at the stake!

And King Henry Vlll left the Catholic church to start his own, and he did away with a few people too. Also the Puritans did away with many during the Winston Salem Witch trials. Point being there have always been those who pursecuted others it wasn’t just limited to Catholcism.

(in a related story, 53 catholics, including clergymen, cooked up a plot at the behest of the pope to remove the Protestant King that replaced bloody mary, the plot was uncovered, and they were put to death…they now are listed by the Catholic church as martyrs…can you really be called a martyr if you were executed for TREASON?)

What you may not know is that during the time and prior to the reformation, to be a formal heritic wasn’t just to lead one into physical error but to kill ones soul, therefore since the governments were also Catholic/Protestant they considered heretics as attacks against the governements also.

Even to the present day, the Catholic Church has been all too willing to strike hands in pledge with those that would harm people. Ever wonder why the Pope has such sweet digs? Its because he signed a treaty with Mussolini, which gave them the Vatican State, in return for Papal support of fascism (Lateran Treaty of 1929)

Oh boy. Where’s the proof?

I’ve even been told that the RCC has reformed itself, that it is no longer the beast it once was, but yet I find in current canon law, posted on the vatican state webpage, previsions for both continued sale of indulgences, and provisions to confiscate property from those who oppose the Catholic church.

That’s again false. Sales of indulgences have NEVER been formally accepted, however to give money to the church as a penance IS STILL accepted as it has always. Abuses with indulgences happened, but abuse in YOUR church is also happened I’m sure!!

Praise be to God that literacy and the printing press has returned the faith to those whom it belongs to!

You’ve only given proof of the impossiblity of sola scriptura.

And which of the thousands of Protestant churches does it belong?

 

[Afterburned6387]

heh, ok, yes, the entirety of western history is quite the chunk to take off, but once again, here is the problem:

If Church is the Authority, its successes and failures reflect whether it is divine or not

If scripture is the Authority, its successes and failures also reflect whether it is divine or not.

We’ve given the Church a few thousand years to prove its divinity, yet it still fails at this. As for the bit about indulgences NEVER being allowed…well…

Can. 994 Any member of the faithful can gain partial or plenary indulgences for oneself or apply them to the dead by way of suffrage.

That comes DIRECTLY from current canon law, listed on the Vatican website. In fact, Book IV, Part 1, Title IV, Chapter IV is dedicated to explaining the idea of Indulgences, and would still allow the sale of such, but even granting for free or any other exchange seems a bit weird to me.

Ok, what else would you like me to prove? Confiscation of Property?

Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:

1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;

well?

As for putting up strictly scriptural defenses of any aspect of my faith, well, I can’t obviously write my own catechism (Though Spurgeon wrote a pretty awesome one available here), but go ahead an pose a question, I would be more than happy to answer.

As for the Donation of Constantine, look at the forgery here

As for the Spiritual Reformation begining in 1100 A.D., I cite the Albingensian Crusade, a history of which is here

As for the letters of the Anabaptists, that link is here

The text of the Lateran Treaty is here

Oh yeah, and as for the definition of a martyr, Merriam-Webster defines them as follows:

1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion

Treason does not fall under this definition, especially in light of Romans 13:1, which says ALL governing authorities are placed there by God. And yes, this includes Hitler.

As for the accusations that Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons are products of Sola Scriptura.

1. Jehovah’s Witness mistranslate the bible to suit their ends. I have yet to hear an accusation that any protestant translation of Our Canon of the bible was done with anything other than the purest exegetical intentions
2. Mormons add a book, and only quote from our scriptures as is convenient. I will be charitable and not directly compare the Book of Mormon to Church Tradition, but it seems when I build scriptural arguments against Catholic Positions…well…they seem to fall back on Tradition over Scripture. Given 2000 years to get their arguments right, I guess I just expect more from them.

Finally, Sola Scriptura allows G.K. Chesterton’s quote to really be true:

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult, and left untried”

We tried Catholicism. We gave them all political and spiritual power, and they ruled mercilessly. I’m still waiting on an apology for many of the Catholic persecutions. As it stands, the only one apologized for was the Inquisition, and that apology came in 2002, several hundred years after the last of the inquisitions was finished. For a religion of forgiveness thats an awfully long time to wait…

The Failures of the Catholic Church indicate it is a failure, because Church is the Authority

The Failures of the Protestant Church indicate man is a failure in his inability to interpret scripture without his fallen bias.

One last thing, as for persecution, doesn’t it bother your conscience to call “persecution” of catholics in the western world by that term? When our faith was founded on the blood of those willing to die? Doesn’t James 1:2 indicated you should be jumping for joy in your “persecution”, calling it a gift from God?

let me know if I left anything out.

 

[Crumpy]

Dear Afterburned:

You’ve got spunk to charge in here and raise so many questions.

I’d like to try to slow you down to discuss one issue, without your just shooting from the hip.

When you look at the letters of St. Paul to the various communities, the Church existed before these letters were written. Right?

So, logically, the Church preceded the NT scripture. The Church in these communities did not depend on sola scriptura. The Church did not arise from NT scripture. Scripture arose out of the Church.

Similarly, the requirement of sola scriptura would require an authority to define the scriptura, for which there is no evidence in NT scripture. This was eventually defined by the Church.

There is even today a plethora of churches as a result of interpreting scripture in different ways. Scripture is obviously not its own authority if so many can come up so many interpretations.

And, we’ll throw in a verse here that I haven’t seen above:

ITi3:15 ** But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth**.

So? the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth, no scripture.

 

[fellowChristian]

Afterburned6387—

Even the Jewish people have “Oral Law” and “Written Law”

"Common sense suggests that some sort of **oral tradition **was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. "
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Oral_Law.html

After all God first talked to Moses.

“The Oral Law is the way in which we connect with the Torah”
simpletoremember.com/faqs/Oral_Law_Written_Law.htm#_Toc529778172

Q: Which came first the Bible or the Church?

Acts 2
41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about **three thousand were added **to their number that day.

Q: Added to what?
Q: The Bible? or The Church?

John 20
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

Q: Where is the rest?

In 1516 if you believed in Jesus you were Catholic.

1400,1300,1200,1100,1000,900,800,700,600,500,400,300,200,100 If you lived in any of these times and you read:

Matthew 18:17
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Q:Which church would you take it to?

How old is your church?
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm

The Catholic Church was on its 218th pope by the time Martin Luther started “The Protest”
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The **4th Pope **St. Clement I, wrote letters and is called an Apostolic Father.
newadvent.org/fathers/

Saint Ignatius is the 3rd bishop of Antioch,chosen by St. Peter himself and taught by St. John the Apostle and is an Early Church Father who wrote letters also.
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
chapter 8
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

And when you read

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Q: Do you notice it does not say “Scripture”?It says church.

Q:Which church?

Q: Since there were no “Protestants” in 382a. who decided which books and letters would go into the New Testament?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Afterburned, I don’t want to sound rude (so don’t take it this way) but:

Do you know how to answer the questions or not?

If you CAN answer those fundamental questions we are wondering why you haven’t done so and we are still awaiting your replay. However if you can’t then that’s a big problem and you should seriously start question where does “following the truth” ends and where “I just want to stick with what’s simpler for me” starts.

So let’s get back to those questions and let’s discuss your concerns with the Church somewhere else (in another thread). OK?

 

[TarlsQtr]

If Church is the Authority, its successes and failures reflect whether it is divine or not

If scripture is the Authority, its successes and failures also reflect whether it is divine or not.

We’ve given the Church a few thousand years to prove its divinity, yet it still fails at this. As for the bit about indulgences NEVER being allowed…well…

Above is the faulty logic that seems to be the basis for all of your assumptions.

The Church will always fail using your logic, because it consists of people. This is true of both the Catholic and Protestant churches. In fact, it happened from the beginning, as the earliest church “failed” (by your standards) on Holy Thursday.

Yet, you did not forsake Jesus because of Judas. Nor should Peter be foresaken because of any latter Judas.

In fact, your logic can only lead to a conclusion that I am sure you do not intend, that Jesus was not true God (God forgive me for typing this even if only to make a point). Here is how:

JESUS in SCRIPTURE says that hell cannot prevail against the Church of Jesus.

You claim that the Church failed because of the acts of human scoundrels (yes people, there were some scoundrel Popes).

Even the earliest Church failed by your standards (in Jesus’ own lifetime!), because of the acts of another human, Judas.

SCRIPTURE and Jesus were wrong, meaning He is not divine.

I’d say you should change the angle used to attack the only Church begun by Jesus.

God Bless,

Jeff

 

[Afterburned6387]

1. Before the first scriptures were written and before the Bible existed, did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura exist or was it something else?

No, the Apostles taught, then at the end of their lives, they wrote the gospels, and Paul wrote his epistles, so that in their absence, the message could continue

1. Did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura exist in the early church? If yes, how so? And do you have any evidence for that claim (such as works of the early Church Fathers, who however clearly oppose it)?

No, we were still close to the Apostles, heresies only slowly creeped in…like Papal Authority (852AD), The Assumption of Mary (1950AD), and so on and so on.

1. How was Sola Scriptura uesed (if you think it was) in an environment where most people couldn’t read and the very few Bibles that existed were too expensive for anyone to afford them (to the extend that they had to be chained in churches so nobody would steal them)?

It wasn’t, they were forced to listen to what the Church had to say, there was no option.

1. If Sola Scriptura is supposed to be practiced, it must be the will of God. Since Sola Scriptura doctrine was simply impossible and clearly wasn’t practiced (unless you prove otherwise) for the first 1500 years (until about the invention of the printing technology), how could it be God’s will? Why would God ask us to do something that is impossible?

1. He asks us to obey his commands, something “impossible with man, but with God, nothing is impossible”
2. They trusted the clergy, a mistake that came back to bite them, or more specifically, burn them at the stake

1. And did it take 1500 years to discover the Truth?

Well, sometimes it does, when one party has been in charge for nearly a thousand years

1. Don’t you think that it’s a little bit contradictory to adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine when the doctrine itself can’t be supported by the Bible (unless you prove otherwise)?

I still can’t get over the whole “God-Breathed” bit in 2 Tim 3:16, If it really is God-Breathed, shouldn’t there be good was of reasoning with scripture to support catholic doctrines? Ive found very few on these forums

1. When people who read the Bible see many different things and it produces much disunity, doesn’t it by itself suggest that it is a false and dangerous doctrine that actually leads people away from the One Truth?

The Gospel is simple, all Protestants are in unity when it comes to what it takes to be “saved”, The denomination system I would say promotes greater unity than the Catholic system, where differences are swept up under the rug, and a mere facade of unity is put in its place.

Hopefully that works. And once again, when the Church is the authority, its successes and failures are a reflection of the Church. If Catholicism botched it so badly, should I be looking to Antioch for my patriarch?

 

[SFLCatholic]

If its as simple as you say to believe in the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then please explain to me what John meant by the following verse.

“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25

Its obvious from this Bible passage that John was saying the Gospels were not the sole source of Jesus’ teachings. Any other interpretaion would be putting words into his mouth.

There’s another problem with your argument. The Gospels and Paul’s letters were written so as to preserve the tradition the Jesus set forth.

No matter which way you slice it, you cannot divide the Scriptures from tradition and vice versa. I have not heard a valid argument from any Protestant of any denomination in defense of Sola Scriptura.

By practicing Sola Scriptura, you are practicing a false doctrine. Do yourself a favor and become Catholic.

The great thing about converted Protestants is they become excellent defenders of the One True Faith. Read Scott Hahn for example.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned, I don’t want to sound rude (so don’t take it this way) but:

Do you know how to answer the questions or not?

If you CAN answer those fundamental questions we are wondering why you haven’t done so and we are still awaiting your replay. However if you can’t then that’s a big problem and you should seriously start question where does “following the truth” ends and where “I just want to stick with what’s simpler for me” starts.

So let’s get back to those questions and let’s discuss your concerns with the Church somewhere else (in another thread). OK?

Afterburned’s participation seems one-sided to me. He appears to be singlemindedly promoting an agenda and posting in a manner which disrespects Catholicism. Both are violations of the forum rules.

The OP asks an enlarging question. Mr Afterburned seems to prefer his own question to the OP question.

So, back to the OP:

1. 
   *]How do folks define ‘rational’?
   *]How do folks define ‘historical’? When does ‘history’ begin?
   *]How do folks define ‘sola scriptura’? There are various understandings, so let’s zero in on one. Agreed?
   *]Is sola scriptura rational and historical?
   I hope this helps.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

No, the Apostles taught, then at the end of their lives, they wrote the gospels, and Paul wrote his epistles, so that in their absence, the message could continue

The Apostles taught and then wrote Gospels? How many of them really did that? Did they write everything they taught?
Second, is this your assumption or do you have any further thing to back it up? Why should we believe that they wrote the gospels so that people could practice Sola Scriptura? The Early Church Father definably don’t agree with you.
However if you notice, the Bible (or simply the NT) as a whole is made up of more than just writings of the few Apostles that wrote it.

Nevertheless you still haven’t answered this question. Did the Sola Scriptura exist right after the first gospels were written, and did it exist before? Also, how was it practiced?

No, we were still close to the Apostles, heresies only slowly creeped in…like Papal Authority (852AD), The Assumption of Mary (1950AD), and so on and so on.

No? So are you acknowledging that Sola Scriptura didn’t exist in the Early Church? Good.
**
So when was it created and how do you show us that it’s not simply a tradition of man if it came later on? And what is the early Church for you?**

As for your ‘attack’ of the Church, you’re very mistaken. These truths which you call heresies were constant teachings of the Church which were only dogmatically defined during those year. If you will be using this argument you will have to conclude that trinity is also a heresy since it was dogmatically defined by the Church after few hundred of years…

It wasn’t, they were forced to listen to what the Church had to say, there was no option.

So are you saying that the Catholic Church existed from the very beginning?
If not then try again!

Look, you’re having a very distorted look on the history of the Church. She was always condemning heresies but it was mainly in the West and also later on that it was using it’s political influence that it gained during the course of its existence. So, how did it work before that?

And even if we suppose that it was like that from the beginning another question must be answered:** Supposing the Church had no physical power, how could people practice Sola Scripture in an environment where most people couldn’t read and the very few Bibles that existed were too expensive for anyone to afford them (to the extend that they had to be chained in churches so nobody would steal them)?**

1. He asks us to obey his commands, something “impossible with man, but with God, nothing is impossible”

1. They trusted the clergy, a mistake that came back to bite them, or more specifically, burn them at the stake

I’m sorry but I don’t get it. How does it answer my question?
**
How come God was asking us to use Sola Scriptura when when people simply couldn’t use it (they coudn’t read, they coudn’t own Bibles)? Why would he create a system that is impossible for nearly 1500 years? Does God ask us for the impossible?**

Well, sometimes it does, when one party has been in charge for nearly a thousand years

Did they discover it or did they re-discover it?

I still can’t get over the whole “God-Breathed” bit in 2 Tim 3:16, If it really is God-Breathed, shouldn’t there be good was of reasoning with scripture to support catholic doctrines? Ive found very few on these forums

How does that answer the question?

Once again:
Don’t you think that it’s a little bit contradictory to adhere to the Sola Scriptura doctrine when the doctrine itself can’t be supported by the Bible (unless you prove otherwise)?

As far as your statement goes - how much time and effort have you given to your search to find whether Catholic doctrines contradict the Bible? I’m asking because there are no contradictions. If you see any then make a new thread. If it’s simply that a doctrine in not explicitly in the Bible - then it’s because you’re using Sola Scriptura.

The Gospel is simple, all Protestants are in unity when it comes to what it takes to be “saved”, The denomination system I would say promotes greater unity than the Catholic system, where differences are swept up under the rug, and a mere facade of unity is put in its place.

So those protestants who believe that baptism is necessary for salvations are in unity with those protestants who believe that baptism is merely a symbol? And those protestants who don’t believe in Sola Fide support your unity argument? Or are these not Protestants?

As far as the claim that there is greater unity among protestants than among Catholics…that’s simply ridiculous. It’s like saying that there unity among humans because they are…well humans.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Afterburned6387:

Hopefully that works. And once again, when the Church is the authority, its successes and failures are a reflection of the Church. If Catholicism botched it so badly, should I be looking to Antioch for my patriarch?

No, they are the reflection of the sinfulness of men. The Church never failed but the people in the Church fail all the time. The Church itself is sinless and without failure - existing for nearly 2000 years (no earthly institution had ever got even close to this).

Do you think that if Church was a visible organization as we claim Catholics claim, the people in charge (or even ordinary Catholics) suddenly would stop sinning and the devil would stop tempting them? Because if you believe that than I don’t understand how you can ever argue against papal infallibility, which is NOTHING compared to this extreme and simply crazy idea!