Sola Scriptura is True

[Lapey]

Yes, I said that liberal Protestantism redefined what “exegesis” meant. Your google search simply reinforced this by giving you a definition by a liberal Protestant professor at a liberal Protestant seminary.

Yes, of course it has. It would be a very weird word if it hadn’t. Words change all the time.
Edwin

I’m growing tired…liberal = change

Conservative = no change.

You accuse me of being liberal but you want the word to change.

Throwing around terms like you do doesn’t help your argument either.

I do not and will not believe that the author of the Johanine letters ever meant this term any other way than the term was used, every other meaning or use of “anti-Christ” is out of context. Neither can you produce legitimate Early Catholic writers who believed anything different, if so they were probably called heretics.

Now the result of exegesis can be different depending on ones point of view, but exegesis is just that, exegesis. I hate repeating myself.

Which google result should I have taken?

 

[Contarini]

But it seems to me that the same logic would force one to condemn the attempt to insist on anything at all. Or am I missing something?

I may be missing something myself. I specifically said that according to sola scriptura we can’t *insist *on something not found in Scripture. In other words, a claim that X is dogma must also be a claim that X is the true teaching of Scripture. This doesn’t solve the question of what (among the very many things that can be claimed to be Scriptural) actually can be insisted on as dogma. But it does rule out certain things–the Assumption of Mary being one of the less controversial examples. (I know that there are some Catholic defenders of “material sufficiency” who would argue that it can be proved from Scripture, but I think this is very unconvincing, and most Catholics simply rely on the authority of the Church for that one.)

I see a great irony in your being one of the more eloquent defenders of Catholic (or at least catholic) thinking here, yet you share denominational ties with Bishop Spong and actively gay bishops.

That way lies precisely the “factionalism” you rightly condemn. There were some pretty unappealing bishops in the Catholic Church of the 16th century too!

I remain a Protestant of sorts not because I don’t want to be in communion with Catholicism, but because I refuse to break communion with my Protestant brothers and sisters (and as an Anglican I don’t have to). Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Edwin

 

[jblake]

Zooey;:

But my point is, that everybody relies on some Tradition (or tradition).Its the person who claims to follow Sola Scriptura who has a big problem because Sola Scriptura is itself somebody’s Tradition

There are Christians congregations that reject tradition, Tradition, and Scriptura Sola. In essence, each convert reconstructs his/her theology from scratch.

None of us can just walk away claiming to follow “only” the Bible. When we’re being honest (& I try to be, I hope), we have to admit that we are following after someone’s opinion.

The “man from Mars” approach can be done, but it is hard to do, due to cultural conditioning.

jonathon

 

[Contarini]

I’m growing tired…liberal = change

Conservative = no change.

You accuse me of being liberal but you want the word to change.

No, I don’t. I am pointing out that the definition of “exegesis” you are using is shaped by liberal Protestantism. I am using that phrase as it has traditionally been used in theological circles. And this fits your own preferred usage, since the liberal Protestant approach was certainly a big change. The question: why do you accept this change so readily? Does the fact that it happened a century and a half ago somehow make it holy?

I do not and will not believe that the author of the Johanine letters ever meant this term any other way than the term was used, every other meaning or use of “anti-Christ” is out of context. Neither can you produce legitimate Early Catholic writers who believed anything different, if so they were probably called heretics.

Irenaeus was certainly not a heretic. It’s true that many aspects of his apocalyptic views were not in the end accepted. But his composite picture of the Antichrist was accepted–it was just put in an amillennial rather than premillennial context. See Augustine’s City of God, Book 20, chap. 13. Augustine was not a heretic either.

Now the result of exegesis can be different depending on ones point of view, but exegesis is just that, exegesis. I hate repeating myself.

No one is making you repeat yourself. You could address my argument instead. You could get off the Internet and go inform yourself as to whether in fact the definition of exegesis has changed. I don’t think it would take you long to discover that I’m telling the truth.

Which google result should I have taken?

Don’t google at all. Read the Fathers. Read secondary literature on the history of exegesis. Go to one of your seminary professors and say “this obnoxious Anglican on the Internet told me that the Church Fathers did exegesis differently from how we do it today–was he right?”

Edwin

 

[Convert66]

I’m exhausted watching Contarini defend both patristic and Catholic exegetical development over and against the German higher criticisms, and simultaneously a healthy view of Sola Scriptura. :juggle: Admirable, to say the least. I’m eating up the book recommends, though.

:tiphat:All my best . . .

 

[Contarini]

I’m exhausted watching Contarini defend both patristic and Catholic exegetical development over and against the German higher criticisms, and simultaneously a healthy view of Sola Scriptura. :juggle: Admirable, to say the least.

Not really. I have several encyclopedia articles which are weeks overdue, a commentary on Mark drawn from the writings of the Reformers which must be finished in less than two years and on which I’ve made little progress so far, and a bunch of syllabi to finish in a week and a half. . . . .

Laying down the law to Lapey regarding the tradition of his own Church may be entertaining in a sinful sort of way, but it’s not what I should be doing right now.

So farewell!

Edwin

 

[caoimhin]

I realize that we could argue all day long about this…I will let the reading audience decide
Whether or not is has the ‘ring of truth’

You brought up a multitude of Protestant objections to Catholic teaching, each of which could easily be a thread in itself. And there was a time I would have said what you said above. But if you do a search on these forums, I’d bet that the scriptural case for these things --and for the Catholic way of deriving teachings from scripture in general-- has much more biblical support than you might imagine.

You bring up Matt. 16:18. Protestants (and I didn’t think JWs placed themselves in that category) like to discuss who or what the “rock” is, but notice something else. Jesus said He would build His church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. But by Protestant or JW reckoning, the gates of Hell did indeed prevail against it or there would have been no need for them to restore their versions of “true” Christianity.

The Watchtower likes to make a lot of claims about what the early Church “really” believed. But there’s no mystery to it; we can each see for ourselves what they believed. Enjoy!

Oh and BTW, in referencing scripture, do you realize that on the question of the contents of scripture (i.e. which books are inspired, whether the Protestant or Catholic canons) the WTS is accepting the judgment of the same “Christendom” that it denounces as apostate? That strikes me as a real dilemma.

 

[Lapey]

You are annoying me intensely because you keep focusing on my “arrogance” and your “offense” instead of dealing with the arguments I’m presenting.

You haven’t presented me with your view of the Church Fathers.

As far as I can tell, the argument I’m making is pretty much exactly what your own Pope would say. But I could be wrong. I’m happy to be shown wrong. But you can’t be bothered to try. I therefore have to conclude that your scorn, disdain, and hatred for Protestants is so deep that you can’t even bother to address any argument presented by a Protestant.

Which raises the question: why are you on this thread?

You can stop “striking a nerve” when you bother to inform yourself about how the Fathers approached exegesis. Contrary to what you assume, the word really *has *changed quite dramatically. Why are you so concerned with me? Ignore me. But don’t ignore the Fathers.

Edwin

You sound like my spiritual director…LOL

I drive him nuts too! He is liberal, btw.

You haven’t presented the view of the Church Fathers that contradict what I have said. All you do is say that I am wrong. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. I was in a conversation with another poster to this thread, not you. You decided to jump in and correct me. So here we are.

Do I hate protestants, no definitely not, as the word of God says, “…if you hate your brother whom you can see and say you love God whom you cannot see, you are a liar.” I do hate the attacks on the Church and what she teaches and the history of the Catholic faith, but not the attackers. I especially hate when people use sacred scripture to mislead others about the Church, i.e. “anti-Christ”.

It is my baptismal obligation to inform the person of their error. If I annoy you by doing that then I say, so be it. It’s nothing personal, it’s not my intension

Have I read and studied all the Early Church Father’s Writings, no I haven’t, but I can assure you there are none in communion with the Church that agree with DD2007 on either of the topics we have discussed.

I would challenge you as well on the statement that your view of the meaning of the word exegesis would be more in line with the Pope than mine would. Obviously we cannot call him to ask, so I guess we’ll have to let that one go.

 

[caoimhin]

I may be missing something myself. I specifically said that according to sola scriptura we can’t *insist *on something not found in Scripture. In other words, a claim that X is dogma must also be a claim that X is the true teaching of Scripture. This doesn’t solve the question of what (among the very many things that can be claimed to be Scriptural) actually can be insisted on as dogma. But it does rule out certain things–the Assumption of Mary being one of the less controversial examples. (I know that there are some Catholic defenders of “material sufficiency” who would argue that it can be proved from Scripture, but I think this is very unconvincing, and most Catholics simply rely on the authority of the Church for that one.)

If we can’t dogmatically insist on sola scriptura, then we concede a degree on uncertainty on the way in which we derive doctrine from the inspired text. It might be “the Bible alone” although your training tells you we unavoidably bring our own fallible assumptions to the text. And if not “the Bible alone” then the Bible and …? What? This or that exegetical method? Current (and admittedly provisional) understanding of historical context? The latest insights in linguistics or semiotics? Attempts to synthesize all the exposition of all Christian scholars thoughout history? And if you can’t even answer this question with certainty, then it seems to me that uncertainty is all you have, on each and every point of doctrine.

And now I have to pry myself away from these forums for a bit…

 

[Lapey]

Not really. I have several encyclopedia articles which are weeks overdue, a commentary on Mark drawn from the writings of the Reformers which must be finished in less than two years and on which I’ve made little progress so far, and a bunch of syllabi to finish in a week and a half. . . . .

Laying down the law to Lapey regarding the tradition of his own Church may be entertaining in a sinful sort of way, but it’s not what I should be doing right now.

So farewell!

Edwin

Thanks for “laying down the law” to Lapey, however, you have made no points, only statements.

Later & may God Bless you!

 

[rinnie]

Yes, I realize that.
But my point is, that everybody relies on some Tradition (or tradition).Its the person who claims to follow Sola Scriptura who has a big problem because Sola Scriptura is itself somebody’s Tradition.
None of us can just walk away claiming to follow “only” the Bible. When we’re being honest (& I try to be, I hope), we have to admit that we are following after someone’s opinion.
The trouble arises when that claim proves to be based on something other than the actual words of Scripture. Because, after all, there we are again::slapfight: over the table of contents.

But here is the thing, when Jesus left the Church he left the key to Peter. He promised to guide the CHurch with the advocate the HS and promised that the CC would always lead us to the absolute truth. He promised us that.

Now Peter started the Catholic Church and the Pope is handed down the keys to the kingdom. Now to deny that the Pope has been handed down those keys would mean that we deny that Peter ever had them either. Then you would be denying that Jesus CHrist had the power to hand over those keys. Do you understand what I am saying?

So the Question really is do you believe that Jesus Christ had that Power given to him from God to have the keys to the kingdom here and in heaven. If you believe that then you have to agree that God gave Jesus all power on heaven and earth the way he said he did. ANd if you believe that you must believe his words when he told the APostles all was given to me I now give to you. GO and make disciples of all nations. WHich they did, and continue to do. Jesus said the power would never die until the end of time. Now you either believe he has the power and passed it down or you don’t. If you believe what he said you cannot deny the Power of the Pope and the Bishops in office. Its as simple as that.

He also the hades would never end this power. Hades in the old testament meant death. So what Jesus said was death would never end this power. That is why it is passed down until the end of time the way Jesus promised. SO the gate of hades has never prevailed. Jesus said so. The power of the HS is still as alive today as it was in the time of Jesus. Because Jesus leads the Catholic CHurch and the Pope by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised he would never leave us orphans. ANd he never has. He is alive and well in the HS and is still guiding the CC and the Pope and Bishops in office.

 

[rinnie]

And also to the other point I stated and no one addressed.

SS divides Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

Catholic teaching is the same in ever Catholic Church it unites Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

Because SS means you feel you have the power of the HS in you to be a teacher. The bible says no, the bible told the Apostles to choose wisely the teachers you pick.

In the RCC we accept the word of God to be given to certain teachers by the Power of the HS the way God said. SO we all agree on the same teachings, so we are not separated when it comes to the teaching of Christ.

 

[dj_dave]

Also, as Cardinal Newman would point out here, this verse if applied that way would prove too much and provide a basis, say, for rejecting the book of Revelation which hadn’t been written yet, because Paul speaks of what is written, not what *is or shall be *written. So I don’t think that’s what God meant by this inspired text.

I believe God (knowing fully well HE was going to also inspire John later on) meant the soon to be written and final books by John in paul’s “God Breathed” comments at 2 Tim.3:16,17

 

[caoimhin]

I believe God (knowing fully well HE was going to also inspire John later on) meant the soon to be written and final books by John in paul’s “God Breathed” comments at 2 Tim.3:16,17

But that’s precisely the problem. How do we get from what is written to our ideas of what God “meant”? What we’ve seen over and over again in these threads is that the people who argue for “the Bible alone” are really arguing for their personal or denominational understanding of what the Bible means. One Protestant who claims “the Bible alone” has his proof texts to show why another Protestant who claims “the Bible alone” is mistaken in his understanding of his proof texts. And ironically the WTS really claims a greater degree of authority than even the Catholic Church does in telling us what the correct meaning is. Which implicity shows us that the Bible and theology are not one in the same, but the latter is man’s attempt to understand the former. So then, are we just left with our (or our denomination’s) best guesses about what the true meaning is? Is that what God intended, do you think?

 

[caoimhin]

I remain a Protestant of sorts not because I don’t want to be in communion with Catholicism, but because I refuse to break communion with my Protestant brothers and sisters (and as an Anglican I don’t have to). Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I empathize. My wife and I still have close friends from our former “non-denominational” evangelical church, and we hope that our being received into the Catholic Church is seen for what it is: a positive step forward in obedience to God, and not a rejection or denigration of the bonds between us.

My own take is that the splits of the Reformation are not an irreparable scrambling of eggs. If leaving was wrong, it seems to me that returning is not another wrong but a right. And part of the irony I mentioned earlier is that the apostates who are good Episcopalians are leaving you; not ecclesiastically but doctrinally. I understand the Anglican willingness to bend rather than break, and the historic compromise that began that. But a denomination needs something held in consensus. At the moment you are organizationally united with people who actively oppose historic Christian orthodoxy (or at least the notion of any objective, propositional revelation from God) and want to replace it with secular humanism in clerical drag. So far no amount of re-interpreting or re-imagining (and doesn’t that term betray a lot?) has been deemed to be going too far. And if some Catholics appeal to the Magisterium a little too simplistically, at least the Magisterium is there to keep the folly from progressing to that extent.

At least that’s my Catholic-in-training perspective

 

[AngloCatholic1]

Sola Scriptura is true?

If this were so, there would only be ONE protestant church! They would all agree on every aspect of faith and rites, such as forms of baptism, observance of the sabbath, feast days, etc., etc. ad infinitum…

It is OBVIOUS that scripture needs an OFFICIAL interpretation in each and every instance, and THAT is why Christ chose His inner apostles and established THE Church!

Amen.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But what about the writings of the apostles that are not included in the Bible??? History cannot deny that these men wrote more than what appears in our Bible today.

John, the beloved disciple, even tells us himself in John 21: 25 “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.”

It is very evident that not all the actions of Christ or writings of the apostles are contained within the Bible.

That’s a red herring. The fact is that they are not. That’s no problem, simply a fact - showing that (for certain purposes) some books are inspired, while others are not.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, my friend, you are very much in error here. What you are doing, if you’ll forgive my directness, is simply espousing more of the same heretical teachings which the immoral and dishonest Reformers espoused, while ignoring or rejecting the Fathers and all the approved Doctors of the Church. My humble suggestion is that you spend more time reading the holy Fathers and Doctors, and less the Reformers, if you are truly sincere about having a proper understanding of Scripture and of the true Christian faith.

Here now, is the proper exegesis (as well historical context) of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

1. “Man of God” is a technical term, used only for those with legitimate authority. The reformers and those who follow them have zero authority to interpret Scripture, to teach the Christian faith, or to correct others.
2. The term “Man of God” is not used even once, either in the Old or the New Testament, to refer to a lay person!

Here’s proof:
biblestudytools.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=%22MAN+OF+GOD%22&section=0&version=niv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=2ti&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3

1. This epistle was written by a celibate apostle to a celibate Catholic bishop. It was not written to Christians in general.
2. This passage teaches that the Scriptures are inspired and are useful for Catholic bishops in their official capacity as bishops of the one Church. That’s all! It has no relevance whatsoever to Protestantism with its 100% failure rate at proper interpretation.

Now as to the immorality and outright dishonesty of the reformers, you ought to do at least a little historical research into that area also. You might begin with this (but with a word of caution: Denifle can be rather severe at times):

Luther and Lutherdom, Heinrich Denifle, 1917, Cornell University Library (July 8, 2009)
ISBN 1112168176 ISBN 978-1112168178

Contents:
scribd.com/doc/15808674/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Contents

Forward:
scribd.com/doc/15764913/Luther-and-Lutherdom-Heinrich-Denifle-Forward-to-the-Second-Edition

Introduction:
scribd.com/doc/16071007/Luther-and-Lutherdom-H-Denifle-Introduction-pp-128

And don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Luther didn’t have some good and praiseworthy aspects - he did! But his and the other Reformer’s immorality ought to be addressed, and not covered up. I would just ask you to please keep that in mind.

God bless.

Denifle is badly out-dated, and should in any case have kept to Thomism and to the history of universities. He’s the main source for O’Hare’s attack. H. Grisar found much to criticise in Denifle - & Grisar was a Jesuit. Grisar is very critical of Luther at times, but he does try to be fair-minded.​

Luther’s cause and Luther’s character don’t depend on one another - so slinging mud at him does not affect the doctrine he was championing; its value is independent of the character of those who championed it.

Not that any of that has much to do with the subject of this thread…

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than** perverting the gospel of Christ** and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.

However, there are some cathoics that are christians. I believe they should come out of the Roman Church and join the people of God.

I agree with Dr. John Macarthur’s position below:

youtube.com/watch?v=bpWDUt89t2g

**I am offended by your baseless, offensive and heretical **
comments here and I demand an apology!

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is an apostate organization that teaches a false gospel. It is filled with deception and the office of the pope is anti-christ. I believe it is an affront for the kingdom of satan who loves nothing better than perverting the gospel of Christ and leading people away from the truth and into bondage to false doctrines based on fear.

However, there are some cathoics that are christians. I believe they should come out of the Roman Church and join the people of God.

I agree with Dr. John Macarthur’s position below:

youtube.com/watch?v=bpWDUt89t2g

CONDUCT RULES
1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

**7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. **

[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=28493)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php
****Rachel Malloy[

****Religious Considerations for posting in NCR discussions ****](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=28493)

Guidelines for posting on religious discussions

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

**If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling. **

Found**** - HERE.****http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php