Sola Scriptura is Wrong

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
** the is a FEATURED ARTICLE at CATHOLIC.COM**

please read it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
  • The Bible-reading habits of Catholics lag far behind those of Evangelical Protestants
  • …some Catholics read their Bibles, but they are sadly too few in number.
  • Catholics (even solid, orthodox ones) read it far less than typical Evangelicals do, and that is a bad thing.
  • Catholics have the Church to guide them, but that doesn’t mean that they should sit and let the Church do everything for them with regard to biblical learning and literacy
  • many Catholics simply don’t want to do the work. They are content to let Mother Church spoon-feed them.
  • The fact that they often don’t do so is an indictment of Catholic catechesis in the last generation, but not of the Church’s teaching itself—because that is not what is taught
  • that too many Catholics neglect or try to minimize or de-emphasize the Bible.
  • If the Mass alone were sufficient for that end, then Catholics would already know their Bibles better than Protestants. But they obviously don’t.
“So I regard it as a self-evident truth that Catholics need to do more study apart from the liturgy, prayer books, and rosaries. We need to read the Bible itself, frequently and often. Merely reading a Bible doesn’t prove love of God, but a person who truly loves God will long to read the words of his beloved.”
 
“Every Sunday we have three bible readings in addition to a responsorial psalm.”

too funny
that is not what I meant by Bible reading.

I am talking about what this article is talking about.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

"I have read more bible readings in Church "

Breaking news: you can read the Bible at home
No kidding.

But you tried to infer that Catholics don’t read the bible at mass.

Get your story straight.
 
did not try to imply that a priest did not read the Bible to/for you…
they obviously do.

I was (and still am) referring to personal Bible reading

did you see the link i included in the posting?

Context , see how that works?

the implication is that you put so little value on the Bible that you don’t have it pews
the implication is that you are not encouraged to open it yourselves

any comments on a FEATURED ARTICLE at CATHOLIC.COM

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

What if the same posting was on Protestant.com?
 
** the is a FEATURED ARTICLE at CATHOLIC.COM**

please read it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
  • The Bible-reading habits of Catholics lag far behind those of Evangelical Protestants
  • …some Catholics read their Bibles, but they are sadly too few in number.
  • Catholics (even solid, orthodox ones) read it far less than typical Evangelicals do, and that is a bad thing.
  • Catholics have the Church to guide them, but that doesn’t mean that they should sit and let the Church do everything for them with regard to biblical learning and literacy
  • many Catholics simply don’t want to do the work. They are content to let Mother Church spoon-feed them.
  • The fact that they often don’t do so is an indictment of Catholic catechesis in the last generation, but not of the Church’s teaching itself—because that is not what is taught
  • that too many Catholics neglect or try to minimize or de-emphasize the Bible.
  • If the Mass alone were sufficient for that end, then Catholics would already know their Bibles better than Protestants. But they obviously don’t.
“So I regard it as a self-evident truth that Catholics need to do more study apart from the liturgy, prayer books, and rosaries. We need to read the Bible itself, frequently and often. Merely reading a Bible doesn’t prove love of God, but a person who truly loves God will long to read the words of his beloved.”
Howdy!

Okay, so your article says that catholics should read their bibles more.
I have no idea what statistics are involved in this or at what year(s) and area this study was done but let’s ignore facts on this and move on for now.

I think every catholic would agree that it is not a bad thing, to read the scriptures.

In fact, I think I have at least 4 and I think there are 5 papal documents that encourage such, the most recent being Die Verbum.

The probem I have here is twofold.
  1. you are humiliating and intimidating and shaming catholics for not doing as you feel and they would agree they ought to.
  2. No sign of building them up, approaching them in brotherly love, etc. As Paul of Tarsus admonished you to do.
  3. even if catholics read their bibles more often, do you assume that reading will lead them out of the catholic church? They may be firmer catholics for it. Just a thought.
 
The article is over 5 years old, and of course, the use of statistics is misleading. Polls are notorious for being poor indicators… .we have no idea of exactly who was polled, etc. Furthermore, as far back as I believe 1898 (over 100 years ago, and therefore well before Vatican 2) Catholics were given indulgences for reading the Bible. Kind of knocks out the idea that they were discouraged from reading it, doesn’t it?

I keep hearing these ‘anecdotal’ stories about people who supposedly went to Catholic school and were told by Father X and Sister Z that ‘we’ didn’t read the Bible, the Church would 'tell us what we needed to know." Balderdash IMO, certainly not my experience growing up Catholic in 1960s Philadelphia where we studied the Bible in class daily. My first year in choir (5th grade) when we sang (in Latin) the beautiful psalms for Christmas, the Triduum, Pentecost etc. we knew what they meant and how they tied in with the entire Bible, Old and New Testament. The following year we sang them in English, and except for the occasional clunkiness of getting the English to ‘match up’ with the rhythm of the Latin chant, we likewise knew what they meant.

I think a truer point would be that many people today simply don’t read much at all.

Also, suppose Joe Baptist ‘reads’ Scripture, but doesn’t understand it? (understands, say, incorrectly). Certainly it’s good that Joe is reading Scripture instead of some piece of dreck, but he’s not really getting much out of Scripture. And suppose Jane Catholic is reading something like Magnificat Magazine, which has various Scripture readings, tied in with devotional teachings and optional prayers. Jane might not be sitting in front of a book labelled “The Holy Bible” (and therefore might have answered a poorly constructed ‘poll question’ with a ‘seldom’), but Jane is certainly getting a good bit of Scriptural teaching, and getting it with authorative commentary, and having it ‘put together’ into context as well.

Contrast that with say Jack Nondenom, who can rattle off phrases like “Heb. 10”, Roman. 8" etc. but has no idea as to how these phrases ‘work’, with, say, Genesis 17, or the significance of Kings 1. Jack Nondenom throws about cherry picked Scripture only in so far as he forces it to ‘shore up’ his (or most often, his pastor’s) teaching, and ignores any other possible interpretation for those verses, or any other possible context for those verses, especially if they would contradict Jack’s ‘ideas’.

I think it would be wonderful if more Catholics–and Protestants–read the Bible properly, and more often than they do today–but on the whole, I think the supposedly ‘non-Bible reading Catholics’ are in some ways better off. Because they simply need to be encouraged to read more. Unfortunately many (not all) Protestants who THINK they know the Bible like the back of their hand have often gotten much of it completely wrong. In their case, they’ll not only have to recognize their errors, but they’ll have to go back ‘to the beginning’, root out the errors, and start all over again. . .

Oh, and just for the record, since I’m sure you’ll ask. . .Yes, I’ve read the Bible through. More than once. How much time a day do I devote to it? Between 30 to 45 minutes daily, over an hour on Sunday, and the more I read, the beauty and truth I find.

Just a small note to a post earlier which spoke of the Bible as "the living breathing Word of God’–I protest. JESUS CHRIST is the living breathing Word of God. Scripture is the WRITTEN word of God, inerrant and God breathed, but it is not equivalent to the person of Christ.
 
.“I think every catholic would agree that it is not a bad thing, to read the scriptures.”

I see that as a difference: because I would say it is one one the BEST things to do.

It is the indifference to reading the Bible that is sad.

In an effort to distance yourselves from Sola Scriptura , you have distanced yourselves from the Bible

Why would this question even need to be asked?
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711clas.asp
**ARE CATHOLICS ALLOWED TO READ THE BIBLE ? **
 
Did you see that the pamphlet which this article quoted was written in 1921???

Did it occur to you that perhaps the people ‘asking the question’ weren’t Catholics, but Protestants, especially considering the time period? (less than 7 years later the first Catholic candidate for president would be viciously smeared and attacked). . .
 
*“I think a truer point would be that many people today simply don’t read much at all. *”

I would bet more Cataholics have read the DaVinci Code than one book of the Bible

"the use of statistics is misleading. Polls are notorious for being poor indicators… "

What poll /stats are you refering to?
*
“Yes, I’ve read the Bible through. More than once”*
Great , you are the exception , PLEASE encourage others to do the same!
and yes worship, Bible reading AND study , prayer, and fellowship are all to be encouraged
 
I don’t think that I’m really that much of an exception, actually. Most of the Catholics I know either read their Bibles frequently, or have done so for long periods, either in youth or in adulthood.

Similarly, many of my Protestant friends read Scripture frequently, some doing so in youth, some in adulthood, some in both. . .

The person who isn’t reading Scripture today might, in a month, a year, 5 years. . .be the person not only reading it but understanding it, teaching it, on fire with it.

The person reading it ‘daily’ today might slack off tomorrow.

Quite often people at various ‘stages’ of life are more or less prone to certain activities. The average adolescent often views The Bible as a ‘rule book’ (even my best friend, who has read the Bible throughout her life --we’re both 53 now)–had a brief period of about 3 years where she did not pay attention to Scripture and neglected her studies) and wants no part of it, even if he/she a few years ago in elementary school was a ‘Bible scholar’; that same adolescent a few years later could rediscover that youthful fervor. . .or it might take many years for him to pick up Scripture study again, even if he had been brought up in it in his youth. . .

I personally wouldn’t touch the DaVinci code with a 10 foot pole–or a 7 foot Lithuanian for that matter–but a lot of Catholics really do try to pray and learn the faith.
 
I would consider the statement that more catholics have read the DaVinci code then a single book of the bible as naturally false. Ignoring what ive heard from others, several things clearly disprove you. For one bible reading is consistently practiced to a great extent in the Catholic education system, personally id probably read the majority of the bible before the end of the fifth year. Other things which proove you wrong would be the consistent establishment of bible and prayer groups in the catholic churches parishes, which contradicts a scripturally inept laity.

Based on my experiences most protestants are in fact less likely to read the bible then Catholics (Of course the lack of Evangelicals in my country skews the ratio) and the general knowledge and comprehension of the sacred scriptures and of their own churches doctrines is sadly lacking.(Its just too bad i live in a very irreligious country[Of the prostestants i know the only religious one is a pastor])
 
acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Funny thing… I just had a Bible Study class on this. Paul, while witnessing the Bereans seemed to be using other sorces to preach the Gospel besides Scripture. I took notes…

The question at issue is whether Paul, in Acts 17:11, is teaching that Scripture is the sole and final authority for matters of faith. We will now examine the context of Acts 17 to help determine the answer.

Acts17:2 records:

“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.”

Here we see that it was not only the Bereans who were steeped in Scripture, but Paul himself, who in this regard had led the way in all the synagogues in which he taught. At this early time in Christian history, the synagogue was still the main meeting place, for Jews as well as Greeks. It was Paul’s “custom” to visit the synagogues in each city of his missionary journey. For example, on his trip to Antioch recorded in Acts 13:14, Luke tells us that “on the Sabbath,” Paul and his companions “entered the synagogue and sat down…reading from the Law and the Prophets…” As he would later do in Thessalonica and Berea in Acts 17, Paul made it a continual practice to read and teach from the Scriptures — in this case, the Old Testament.

Hence we see that Paul’s teaching sessions in the synagogue were to a people who knew their Scripture, used it often, and were willing to exchange ideas about it. If Paul appealed to Scripture, then it was to Scripture the people would go to check “if what Paul said was true.”

But there was a special reason that Paul may have stimulated (or agitated), his hearers. In Thessalonica, Acts 17:2¬-3 records that Paul not only read from the Scripture but that he “argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead” (“Argue” is from the Greek dialegomai, which is understood either as “to dispute” (e.g., Mark 9:34, Jude 9); or as “to argue” or “to reason” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19:8¬-9; 20:7, 9; 24:12, 25). “Explaining” is from the Greek dianoigoo, from where we get the word “diagnosis,” which is used exclusively for “opening” or “opening up” (e.g., Mark 7:34, 35; Luke 2:23; 24:31, 32, 45; Acts 16:14); and “proving” is from the Greek paratitheemi, meaning “to set before” (Acts 16:34) or “commit” (Acts 20:32). The word does not mean “proof,” per se, but “to show” or “to exhibit.”

(A synonym is used in Acts 18:28 which says that Apollos “powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus”). The word “showing” is from the Greek epideiknumi (cf., Matt. 16:1;22:19;24:1;Acts9:39: Hb6:17)).

The normal word for “proof” is dokimadzo (cf., 1Co 3:13; 2Co 8:8; 13:5; 1Th 5:21; 1Tm 3:10), but this word is not used in Acts, nor is it used elsewhere to equate the Christ with Jesus. Apparently, Paul was deducing from already known Scripture new understandings about what that Scripture meant in light of the events that had just taken place a decade or so earlier.

In Luke’s wording we notice a slight difference between what Scripture said and what Paul taught. In the beginning of verse 3 he says that Paul was “proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead,” but in the latter part he records Paul saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ…” The difference between the two is that Paul is interpreting “the Christ” of the Old Testament to be the “Jesus” of the New Testament. Since the Old Testament did not use the name of “Jesus” to identify the Messiah (i.e., the Christ) Paul’s message was a new application of Scripture.

(Continued next post)
 
(Continued part 2)

Furthermore, the Jews did not believe that their coming Messiah had to “suffer,” let alone “rise from the dead.” Most of the Jews expected their Messiah to be a powerful king who would save them from Gentile rule. In their view, he would not have to rise from the dead because he would establish himself as an eternal king who would rule forever over the Jews’ enemies. They simply did not understand the many Old Testament passages which spoke of the Messiah as a suffering servant who had to die ¬a suffering he underwent precisely for their sin of disbelief in him (cf., Isaiah 53:10-12;Luke 24:46).

In Thessalonica, it was Paul’s statement that “the Christ” of the Old Testament was the “Jesus” of the New, which caused such contention and jealousy among the Jews. In Acts17:5-7 Luke records their response:

5 But the Jewish leaders were jealous, so they gathered some worthless fellows from the streets to form a mob and start a riot. They attacked the home of Jason, searching for Paul and Silas so they could drag them out to the crowd. 6 Not finding them there, they dragged out Jason and some of the other believers instead and took them before the city council. “Paul and Silas have turned the rest of the world upside down, and now they are here disturbing our city,” they shouted. 7 “And Jason has let them into his home. They are all guilty of treason against Caesar, for they profess allegiance to another king, Jesus.”

It is apparent by their last words, “another king, Jesus,” that the Jews were simply not ready to accept the Christ of the Old Testament as the Jesus of the New. Hence Paul and the Jews of Thessalonica were not contending about the veracity or usefulness of Scripture; rather, it was Paul’s interpretation of Scripture that they could not accept.

Everyone believed Scripture’s prophecy about the coming Messiah. But the information that the Christ was “Jesus” who had recently suffered and died at the hands of the Jews was something Paul was getting from another source outside Scripture. This new information would, of course, correlate with Scripture but it would none the less be in addition to Scripture.

Such was the case, in fact, in Paul’s own conversion. He had to be convinced through additional divine revelation that the people who followed “Jesus,” and whom he was persecuting, were in actuality followers of “the Christ.” In Acts 9:5, after being knocked off his horse by a flash of light, the Lord said to Paul, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting…” At that instant Paul recognized that his long¬ awaited Messiah was the “Jesus” who had suffered and died a decade or so earlier.
(Notice the attention Acts gives to identifying Jesus as Messiah, cf., Acts 1:1, 11;2:22, 32, 36; 3:13, 26; 4:27-33; 5:30; 7:55; 8:35; 10:38; 13:23; 18:5, 28; 25:19; 28:23). It was not Scripture that brought him to this point but a revelation from Jesus himself showing Paul how the Old Testament Scriptures were to be interpreted.

When Paul arrived in Berea, he acted just as he did in Thessalonica — he went to the synagogue to teach. We may assume that he engaged in similar “arguing,” “explaining” and “proving” from Scripture with the Bereans that he had done with the Thessalonians. We may also assume that Paul, as in Thessalonica, made it a point to teach the Bereans that the Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New. The Bereans received Paul’s interpretation of Scripture without hesitation.

But why, we ask, did Luke consider the Jews of Berea more “noble” than the Jews in Thessalonica, when, according to Luke’s description of the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4, “And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”

It is obvious that not all the Jews in Thessalonica had rejected Paul’s interpretation of Scripture. Wouldn’t Luke consider these Jews “noble” for accepting Paul’s message? The answer is yes, but these noble Jews were so badly outnumbered by the jealous and riotous Jews who rejected Paul’s message that Luke was forced to sum up the situation in Thessalonica as one of general unbelief. We see this also in the way he describes how many people were positively influenced by Paul’s message. Regarding the Thessalonians in Acts 17:4 he points out that only “some of the Jews were persuaded,” while in regard to the Bereans in Acts 17:12 he says “many of the Jews believed…” (“Some” is from the Greek word tines, while “many” is from the Greek work polloi).

Apparently, the number of believing Jews in Berea were of a sufficient quantity that Luke could designate them, at large, as “noble” in contrast to the overall negative disposition of the people in Thessalonica. Moreover, the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica further justified Luke’s negative assessment since they caused riots among the people both in Thessalonica and later in Berea (cf., 17:5-9 and 17:13-15).

Acts 17:11 dose not support Sola Scriptura. 👍
 
You know when it comes to a persons’ beliefs I just have to say,“Don’t judge lest ye be judged.” In this day and age where sin rules the human heart; anyone that follows a Christian tradition should be encouraged to follow Christ. Now as there are many Christain traditions there WILL be different points of view. But come now just stating Sola Scriptura is wrong is pretty bad. Now I am a person going through RCIA and clearly I have a lot to learn. Never the less that was a pretty bold statement and could be viewed as offensive. So we should have discussions but lets use a little tact. After all people live and die by what they believe.
Just my 2 cents.
 
(Continued. part 3)

In view of the facts, is it reasonable to conclude that the Bereans, because they “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true,” are models of the modern theory of sola scriptura? Is Luke trying to teach us that “nobility” consists in using Scripture as the final authority in determining the veracity of oral teaching? When we look at the evidence fairly and accurately, the answer is a resounding, no. Any attempt to extract from this short pericope a teaching of sola scriptura is simply reading into the text one’s doctrinal bias.The text is simply a narrative of events that occurred in two respective cities, not a treatise on the nature and extent of Scripture and its authority. Granted, the passages suggest how Paul and his hearers used and understood Scripture, but neither Paul nor his commentator Luke say anything definitive about the doctrine of Scripture. Second, we have seen from our comparison of the Jews in Berea with the Jews in Thessalonica that Luke considered the former noble not because they merely examined Scripture, but mainly because they believed Paul’s oral revelation that the Christ of the Old Testament was the Jesus of the New. Luke attributes nobility to them because they “received the [oral] message with great eagerness.” The Bereans believed that the apostle’s oral message had just as much divine authority as the Scripture. In Acts 17:13 Luke specifies Paul’s oral proclamation as: “Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea,” making it clear that the Bereans considered Paul’s oral message to be the very word of God. Paul was not merely speaking about the word of God, he was speaking the actual word of God. Elsewhere, Paul’s own assessment of his oral teaching to the Thessalonians confirms its superlative distinction, for in1 Thessalonians2:13 he states: And we will never stop thanking God that when we preached his message to you, you didn’t think of the words we spoke as being just our own. You accepted what we said as the very word of God- which, of course, it was. And this word continues to work in you who believe. This is a pivotal passage because it shows that Paul considered his oral message to the Thessalonians in Acts 17:1¬4, (which revealed that Jesus was the Christ), and by necessary extension his oral message to the Bereans in Acts 17:11¬13, as divine revelations on a par with Scripture. In fact, no one could know the real meaning of Scripture, as obscure as it was at times, unless accompanied by an equally authoritative divine interpretation. This is the essential teaching of the Bereanen counter.
Since the Old Testament did not explicitly identify “the Christ” as “Jesus,” it was impossible for the Jews of Berea, using the Old Testament alone, to have proven from Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah. One could certainly “reason,” “explain” and “prove” that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, but there was no explicit evidence, other than Paul’s authoritative testimony, that the one who was prophesied in the Old Testament to suffer and rise was the Jesus who walked the earth just a decade or so earlier. The Bereans were noble because they accepted Paul’s apostolic authority on the identity of the Messiah, not because they could extract for themselves from the Old Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Thus, their “examination” of Scripture was limited to reevaluating those passages that spoke of the Messiah as the one who had to suffer, die, and rise again; not to prove or disprove that Jesus was the Messiah.
Before Paul’s teaching, the Bereans, like most Jews, thought that the Messiah would be recognized by a majestic appearance and a subsequent conquering of the Gentiles. It was not until Paul pointed out that the Old Testament passages which spoke of God’s servant as one who had to suffer must be interpreted to apply to the Messiah and, more importantly, that his name was Jesus. The typical Jew, although he knew his Scripture, invariably skipped over the numerous passages in the Old Testament that suggested his Messiah had to first come as one to suffer and die. As Paul says in 2Corinthians3:14¬16:

14 But the people’s minds were hardened, and even to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, a veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth. And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ. 15 Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, then the veil is taken away.
 
(Continued part 4)

After Paul was done teaching, the now enlightened Jew could read a passage like Isaiah 53 and see it in a whole different light (cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 8:26¬35). It was in connecting Paul’s divine revelation of the person of Jesus with the suffering passages of the Old Testament that the Berean “examined Scripture to see if what Paul said was true.” The Berean did not first believe that Jesus was the Messiah and then examine Scripture to see if Paul’s identifying of Jesus as the Messiah was true. No, he examined the Scriptures that spoke of the suffering servant and then accepted by faith that the “Jesus” about whom Paul spoke was indeed the Messiah. His faith was based on accepting Paul’s authority to interpret Scripture, while Scripture served mainly as a witness to what Paul preached. Scripture could not serve as the sole determinant of what Paul taught for the simple reason that Scripture never identified “the Christ” specifically as “Jesus.” He was designated with names like “the prophet” (Deut. 18:15) or “Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14) but never “Jesus” (Matt. 1:21). The Bereans, as their Old Testament prescribed, needed at least two or three witnesses to prove the veracity of a certain person or event (cf. Dt 19:15;2Co 13:1). Paul was one witness and Scripture was another, and both were necessary for the truth to be known and understood. Hence, Acts 17:11 cannot support the concept of sola scriptura. If anything, it implicitly denies such a teaching 😉
 
I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector; and I do not hold to Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura.

There are Protestants who do not believe Sola Scriptura abandons all Christian Tradition. Example: how would one explain the Trinity Doctrine using Scripture, alone?

So, now there is a new term: Solo Scriptura, which is purely Scripture alone.

Personally, I think most Protestantism traded much of the tradition of the ECFs for the tradition of the Protestant Reformers.

Anna
 
Congratulations! you have now departed from fundamental protestant innovations and seen the fallacious nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You are part way down the road to accepting the truth of the Catholic Church.
 
I am a Christian in the Protestant Sector; and I do not hold to Sola Scriptura or Solo Scriptura.

There are Protestants who do not believe Sola Scriptura abandons all Christian Tradition. Example: how would one explain the Trinity Doctrine using Scripture, alone?

So, now there is a new term: Solo Scriptura, which is purely Scripture alone.

Personally, I think most Protestantism traded much of the tradition of the ECFs for the tradition of the Protestant Reformers. Anna
Congratulations! you have now departed from fundamental protestant innovations and seen the fallacious nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You are part way down the road to accepting the truth of the Catholic Church.
Is this a response to my post??

Anna
 
As for me, it all depends on how you define “Sola Scriptura”.

There are some definitions that I have read that I think I can go along with.

There are other definitions that I have read that I do not think I agree with.

I have also come across something called “Prima Scriptura”. When this is a separate entity from “Sola Scriptura” I think I agree more with Prima Scriptura.

Now the definitions of “Sola Scriptura” that I think I agree with appear to be broad enough so that they can encompass the definitions of “Prima Scriptura” that I am more comfortable with.

This can be confusing at times. I think the underlying issue here is how the church and the Bible relate to each other and what are the boundaries of each.

The one thing that I know is that no matter what the underlying concept is, Sola Scriptura is a pretty poor title for it.
 
Sola Scriptura is not a difficult thing to grasp. Imagine a man who is washed up on a desert island; also, for the sake of argument, assume he’s never been baptised or exposed to the gospel. Now, alonside of him a Bible washes up. The question is: is the information contained in the Bible sufficient for him to receive the gospel? Or, does he need human intercession?

Sola Scripture says that the Holy Spirit could use the Gospel to bring the man to salvation. He would not need to be baptized (he couldn’t, he’s alone on the island), confess to a priest, partake in the sacrament of communion, or say any man-made prayer.

That’s all; it does not state, countary to the wishes of some of the posters on this thread, that the Bible contains all truth or only things in the Bible are profitable. It’s about sufficiency for salvation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top