M
Sola Scriptura: It's Found in the Bible and an Idiot Can Practice It
- Status
L
LRThunder
Guest
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
It sure does. If someone tried to defend their faith by using the all sufficient scriptures to refute extra-biblical doctrines. (i.e. Mary’s Perpetual Viriginity) Then yes it does.
Parker
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
Sorry I misread. If you mean the NT, I didn’t see “Catholic” on Paul’s Application but I understand if the word “Catholic” is used to describe the universal church.
What does that have to do with the New Testament?
Parker
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
**Really? Could you demonstrate how the sacrament of Marriage plays a role in someone’s salvation or even entering the priesthood?Really? I can find more quite easily.
John 20:21-23 being my favorite
Parker **
L
LRThunder
Guest
Then provide scripture to back Sola Scriptura up. If it’s in the Bible, it should be easy.
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
**The problem with Sola Scriptura is that Christians who follow it can’t agree on what Scripture teaches (e.g., Baptism, salvation, etc.) Who is the ultimate arbiter in these circumstances?
I didn’t assert Sola Scriptura to mean that everyone in the kingdom of Christendom will have a complete, sound, infallible understanding of doctrines. I said that we use the Bible alone to justify what we believe when we discuss doctrine. If one were to disagree we consult the Bible alone.
Protestantism would have you believe that when the Apostles died, they simply left behind some writings and expected the individual Christian to figure them out for themselves.
I don’t know how to respond to this but you need to understand that there are teachers who can teach and instruct the Bible to everyone which doesn’t deny Sola Scriptura what so ever. However the circumstances even for those who are illiterate are still held accountable because they’ve been taught the scriptures in a church upbringing.
The problem with this is that it presupposes that:
You’re right in the above conditions but like I said earlier, there are teachers who can help out.
Also, most Christians do not know the original languages, and so must rely on a translation, so their understanding of Scripture is only as good as their translation. Would you expect someone whose only Bible was the New World Translation to reach the same conclusions as someone who had a better translation?
The New World Translation is a faulty translation because the JW’s came into a time where everyone had access to the Bible and was able to read. There are the differences, however, there were many people who were trying to feed the hungry people by translating the scriptures into their own language. (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, etc.) But the Catholic Church had forbidden those (with possible good reason from what you just listed above) to do so.
Scripture also states that it contains things hard tounderstand. I’m no Scripture scholar; if I have trouble understanding it, who can I trust to be a reliable teacher?
Again: Sola Scriptura does not by any means deny church authority or assistance from someone who’s more experienced.
I cannot believe Jesus would leave us in the lurch like that with no teaching authority.
He said the scriptures cannot be broken and these writing do so happen to come from authoritative figures. (God, Moses, David, you get the picture)
BTW, Luther and the others did not “reform” anything. Instead they shattered the Christian church and made a mockery of Jesus’ prayer that all be one.
(Edited by Moderator)
Parker
**
I didn’t assert Sola Scriptura to mean that everyone in the kingdom of Christendom will have a complete, sound, infallible understanding of doctrines. I said that we use the Bible alone to justify what we believe when we discuss doctrine. If one were to disagree we consult the Bible alone.
Protestantism would have you believe that when the Apostles died, they simply left behind some writings and expected the individual Christian to figure them out for themselves.
I don’t know how to respond to this but you need to understand that there are teachers who can teach and instruct the Bible to everyone which doesn’t deny Sola Scriptura what so ever. However the circumstances even for those who are illiterate are still held accountable because they’ve been taught the scriptures in a church upbringing.
The problem with this is that it presupposes that:
- All Christians have access to the Bible (before the printing press, the most people simply couldn’t afford one)
You’re right in the above conditions but like I said earlier, there are teachers who can help out.
Also, most Christians do not know the original languages, and so must rely on a translation, so their understanding of Scripture is only as good as their translation. Would you expect someone whose only Bible was the New World Translation to reach the same conclusions as someone who had a better translation?
The New World Translation is a faulty translation because the JW’s came into a time where everyone had access to the Bible and was able to read. There are the differences, however, there were many people who were trying to feed the hungry people by translating the scriptures into their own language. (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, etc.) But the Catholic Church had forbidden those (with possible good reason from what you just listed above) to do so.
Scripture also states that it contains things hard tounderstand. I’m no Scripture scholar; if I have trouble understanding it, who can I trust to be a reliable teacher?
Again: Sola Scriptura does not by any means deny church authority or assistance from someone who’s more experienced.
I cannot believe Jesus would leave us in the lurch like that with no teaching authority.
He said the scriptures cannot be broken and these writing do so happen to come from authoritative figures. (God, Moses, David, you get the picture)
BTW, Luther and the others did not “reform” anything. Instead they shattered the Christian church and made a mockery of Jesus’ prayer that all be one.
(Edited by Moderator)
Parker
**
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Is there an assumption that sacraments deal with salvation exclusively?
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
**Could you possibly explain how come Jesus kept repeating “It is Written” and constantly citing the OT as if they were a sufficient enough to rebuke a false teaching?
Parker **
L
LRThunder
Guest
But he never said, “It is written: everything should be found in the Bible.” Many of Jesus’s lessons came from his teachings…which were oral.
At the time of his ministry and the apostles, there was no Acts, no Romans, no 1st and 2nd Corinthians. Those weren’t around until after Jesus’s ministry was finished on Earth and they weren’t officially canonized until a couple of centuries later.
T
teachccd
Guest
What was appealed to in Acts Chapter 15?? Scripture? I think not. And that’s is scripture…God Bless
O
Observing4Grace
Guest
**Sola Scriptura wouldn’t be so bad if the various Protestant denominations had legitimate authority and could authoritatively,
We do. It’s called the B-I-B-L-E because this book is infallible and cannot be broken.
even if not infallibly, interpret the Scriptures and bind their followers.
Like cursing their believers if they had an altered opinion and questioned the Catholic Authority?
But in Protestantism you have a situation where each believer is his own pope and does not have any legitimate authority to listen to.
This like I keep asserting is a distorted view of Sola Scriptura. Our ulitmate authority when pronouncing doctrine comes from consulting the scriptures alone. Now do not misunderstand the situation here, I didn’t say anything that SS will not produce different denominations. A good example is an instruction manual. People who misread or selectively misquote the manual is at their own fault for not reading it plainly.
Only the Apostolic churches can bind and loose. While many Protestants are outstanding Christians, the Protestant Christian can listen to no authority but has to rely on his own subjective feelings with regard to an interpretation of Scripture.
But the believer is responsible in seeing what is truth and what’s not truth. This is also another distorted view of SS to mean that we’re playing the lone ranger with scriptures.
Without authority, you have doctrinal anarchy, and that is, unfortunately, what has happened to Protestantism. I doubt that the Reformers had intended this as an end result.
You’re a 100% right about the issue but the objective of each reformer was to REFORM, not REINVENT Christianity.
Parker**
We do. It’s called the B-I-B-L-E because this book is infallible and cannot be broken.
even if not infallibly, interpret the Scriptures and bind their followers.
Like cursing their believers if they had an altered opinion and questioned the Catholic Authority?
But in Protestantism you have a situation where each believer is his own pope and does not have any legitimate authority to listen to.
This like I keep asserting is a distorted view of Sola Scriptura. Our ulitmate authority when pronouncing doctrine comes from consulting the scriptures alone. Now do not misunderstand the situation here, I didn’t say anything that SS will not produce different denominations. A good example is an instruction manual. People who misread or selectively misquote the manual is at their own fault for not reading it plainly.
Only the Apostolic churches can bind and loose. While many Protestants are outstanding Christians, the Protestant Christian can listen to no authority but has to rely on his own subjective feelings with regard to an interpretation of Scripture.
But the believer is responsible in seeing what is truth and what’s not truth. This is also another distorted view of SS to mean that we’re playing the lone ranger with scriptures.
Without authority, you have doctrinal anarchy, and that is, unfortunately, what has happened to Protestantism. I doubt that the Reformers had intended this as an end result.
You’re a 100% right about the issue but the objective of each reformer was to REFORM, not REINVENT Christianity.
Parker**
R
RayK83153
Guest
From on devout Catholic revert to you guys writing the Catholic replies, thanks! You might get tired writing the same thing over and over again but you’re an inspiration to the rest of us. Keep up the good work and it’s post like these that make me a more dedicated CATHOLIC!
T
teachccd
Guest
Could you possibly explain how come Jesus never wrote anything down or ever commanded His apostles to write anything?? Instead He said things such as " Do this" “Go therefore” “Teach all nations” Etc. Scripture is authoritative and the Catholic Church teaches that but we never can accept it to be the sole rule of faith. If it was then why don’t you appeal to the Gospel of Thomas?? Where in scripture does it tell you not to??
R
RNRobert
Guest
**
**Fine, but which teachers should be trusted? If someone knocks on my door and claims to be able to teach Scripture, how do I know they are genuine and not a charlatan? There are alot of cults out there who use the Bible to support their false doctrines.
**
**
**
**Again, which authority should I trust? John Calvin, who claims Scripture teaches that we are predestined to heaven or hell and have no say in the matter, or Arminius, who claims Scripture teaches we have freewill. Should I listen to the Lutherans, who justify their belief in baptismal regeneration and baptizing infants, or the Baptists who claim that Baptism is just a symbol and consider baptising infants foolishness (and use the very same Scriptures to justify *their *beliefs)? And so on…
**
**
**
**Who are the authorities today?
**
**
There were problems in the Church back then, this is true, but nowhere in Scripture does the Christian have the authority to start his own church. And I fail to see how asking a buck in the poor box for a candle is “corruption.”
B
BrianH
Guest
Uh…Acts 15:16-18 IS James using scripture
W
water
Guest
It is not “a” situation, but “the” situation. It explains why there are so many divisions there.
R
RNRobert
Guest
Jesus said many times “it is written” but often he followed up with “But it say unto you.” Apparently Jesus didn’t consider the OT the sole authority.
BTW, he told the Jews to listen to those who sat on the “seat of Moses.” Please tell me, where in the Old Testament is this seat mentioned?
T
teachccd
Guest
How can you prove the insipration of Scripture through Scripture alone?? It’s inspired because it says so?? So does the Koran and the New World Translation. How can you prove to a muslem that their Koran is not and that your Bible is only from your Bible?? It’s circular reasoning. I’m the smartest guy in the world. Why? because I said so. Period. So now that with your theory you can’t argue with me you have to accept that I’m right!
T
teachccd
Guest
WHAT?? They came to the conclusion that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to become Christian by appealing to Scripture?? Read Acts 15:6. Then read Acts 15 :1-12. As usual you found something out of context to prove your gospel.Uh…Acts 15:16-18 IS James using scripture
- Status