Sola Scriptura Silence

[Ferde_Rombola]

Sometimes I can’t believe I take time out of my day to address [Ralph], with rather long posts too.

I wonder at it, too. For myself, I’m coming to the end of it with him. It’s like talking to a rock. He not only lacks the capacity for real diologue, he lacks the basic intelligence to understand what’s said to him. He just wants to be right. He doesn’t understand he’s 10 laps behind, as are most anti-Catholic bigots.

Keep the Faith!!

 

[fhansen]

I may not be as intellegent as some as you, however I did not expect this to be an IQ test, as I would fail badly. I pray every day for “wisdom” that God will give me the words to say (especially His word). Ralph

I, for one, am sorry to hear that language Ralphy. Comments about ones intelligence or lack of if it are totally out of place here and you present your position well enough even though I disagree and hope you’ll reconsider at some point. I did, to my own surprise, being anti-Catholic for quite some time.

 

[centurion210]

I, for one, am sorry to hear that language Ralphy. Comments about ones intelligence or lack of if it are totally out of place here and you present your position well enough even though I disagree and hope you’ll reconsider at some point. I did, to my own surprise, being anti-Catholic for quite some time.

I said “he doesn’t seem like a very intelligent guy”, referring to Ralph. Most people seriously reading his responses would come to the same conclusion. He doesn’t answer any questions. It’s frustrating. We need to be honest. Otherwise, if people are trying to waste time, they will keep doing it, thinking their tactics are effective.

Again, I was only saying that his posts and responses do not seem thoughtful. And there are many others who have expressed similar opinions…

 

[SteveGC]

Thanks to everyone for the words of encouragement. I learn so much from all of you. And Ralph too as centurion also mentioned. Ralph keeps things simple, that’s for sure. He’s an example of tenacity with his determination to hold to his beliefs. And that, in general, is a good example for all of us I suppose. I wouldn’t say he’s not intelligent, and I don’t think anyone here really intended for that to be inferred. I’ve seen him post on other threads, and often times, he puts together some eloquent thoughts. I think it’s more of just an apparent lack of desire to learn anything different, that’s what’s frustrating. But then I think…he’s probably frustrated with us too, for never seeing things his way. Well, not never, but seldom. After all, he DOES hold to some fundamental Christian beliefs that we all share, and it’s important to remind him of those things that we fully agree with - and I think we do that for the most part.

Ralph, in a strange way, it actually is a pleasure to have discourse with you on here. All we ask is that you continue to take real time to absorb all we have to say, ask questions where you don’t understand, and limit your ‘injections’ a bit, because we ALL love Jesus immensely, and hold as sacred the inspired written Word. You don’t have to fear for us, because if we are to be judged by your understanding of salvation, we’re all already saved too

 

[fhansen]

I said “he doesn’t seem like a very intelligent guy”, referring to Ralph. Most people seriously reading his responses would come to the same conclusion. He doesn’t answer any questions. It’s frustrating. We need to be honest. Otherwise, if people are trying to waste time, they will keep doing it, thinking their tactics are effective.

Again, I was only saying that his posts and responses do not seem thoughtful. And there are many others who have expressed similar opinions…

**I know it’s frustrating and we feel attacked and I haven’t read all of his posts to be honest but there are more appropriate ways to address the issue, IMO. Anyway I was once adamant about Sola Scriptura myself and required some time-and a fair amount of argumentation with others-before I saw the illogic of its position-to the point that I’d have to give up Christianity altogether now if there were no other alternative for authority.
**

 

[Howie01]

josie L:

The reformers disagreed on many key doctrinal issues, so who was right - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox - take your pick? If the Reformation was truly the work of the Holy Spirit then without any further complications the reformers should have come to the exact interpretation of Scriptures, why is it that they didn’t?

I would expect that had the apostles taught the early fathers orally, there’d be no variance in understanding either, but there was. Why was that?
josie L:

Historically and theologically, sola scriptura failed from its very inception, witness the disagreements between the reformers and the growth of protestant denominations since and after that “glorious” event.

SS hasn’t failed, but is alive and well in those churches that truly adhere to it. And as far as the plethora of opinions, Paul states their necessity so that those who are approved may become manifest (1 Cor 11:19).
josie L:

Pronouncing the CC has corrupted was the only way that the reformers could justify their break from the one true Church of Christ, sola scriptura by default was their sole (literally as they had rejected Tradition and the authority of the Church) source of authority.

They were a bunch of rascals, weren’t they, IYO?
josie L:

Were most people in the 1st century literate, that is, could they read and interpret the scriptures for themselves, or did someone read and intepret it for them? How does sola scriptura work for the individual who is illiterate and as such must depend on someone else’s ability to read and interpret? I would imagine that there was a good many people who were illiterate in the 1st century.

That’s irrelevant to the fact presented.
josie L:

And if the Church is that which upholds the Truth found in God’s written (and oral) revelation, what would happen to the Truth if the Church were not there to hold it up? It would invariably collapse.

And God would send others to expound that truth outside of the church which failed to uphold it.
josie L:

Which means at one point in time he had delivered to them the teachings of Christ by word of mouth before he even wrote the letter you mention.

My point was that the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.
josie L:

Don’t get what you’re trying to prove with this?

That the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.
josie L:

Ahh, now I understand, you think that Tradition has nothing to offer as everything we need to know is pretty much in the Bible.

You don’t understand. I’ll post my statement to which you’re responding again:

With respect to the RCs oral tradition, the inference is that it somehow differs from that which was written by the apostles. That being the case, the burden of proof is upon the Church to substantiate that claim. But I’ve yet to have any Catholic provide a list of unwritten oral tradition, taught by any apostle. It can’t be done.

josie L:

Well, if you would like to find out what the Apostles taught (orally) read the Didache for starters: it mentions abortion, the evil of contraceptives, the eucharist, the necessity of baptism and how it is to be performed, fasting, the role of bishops and deacons, how to recognize false prophets, penance, how Christians assembled on the lord’s day. . . . etc.

I’ve read it. In fact, I have a friend who wrote a book about it.

 

[PWM15537]

Hi there everyone.

Anyway, to start off, I’ve been having some problems recently. Back nearly a year ago was when I decided to leave protestantism behind, and go towards Catholicism. (But, at the present time, I am unable to be baptized. Yet, that is.) The past few weeks, though, I realized that I hadn’t prayed and asked God if Catholicism is the way. (I feel as if I need that confirmation) Now I find myself afraid to ask for the truth, because Catholicism makes me so glad, and it’s so much… fuller. I don’t want protestantism to be true.

But now for my real question:
One of the obvious flaws Catholics point out in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (myself included) is that the Bible never says that the Bible alone is our authority.
Then I got thinking: Should the Bible say that? Why?

Let’s take Jesus (ie the gospels) and the Epistles, which never say anything explicit about Sola Scriptura. Scripture being our sole authority as opposed to something else was never a matter of debate among Christians then. Why should they have said anything about it? I mean, the epistles were written to address issues of the time (For instance, Paul’s talk of the Lord’s Supper didn’t say much explicit about how we should to it: It was to address the problem that people were eating their own meals during that time.).

So I’m unsure… The matter of authority was not a problem back then, and Scripture was quoted frequently and spoken of as “God-breathed”, the way one would speak of it if they held it as the sole authority. Is the silence of Sola Scriptura meaningful? Are the protestants right??

So confused…

God Bless.

JJ, be encouraged, you are not alone in your pursuit of understanding.

Sola Scriptura, in reality, is the basis for everything in the Christian faith, no matter the particular flavor. Even the “five solas” of the Reformation all find their root in Sola Scriptura. Its value is preached over and over again in the New Testament, even if that term is never used.

Over and over, God emphasizes the key role of Scripture through the writers of the NT. Be it the authority of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16,) their testimony of Christ (Jn. 5:39,) or the value we see in Jesus’ citation of them, the Scriptures are the only tangible constant that has been passed on to us.

 

[rocketrob]

…
so if mary was born without sin, what of her parents?
do you know that rahab is in the line of Christ geneology?
do you know that rahab was a prostitute?
and the list goes on…

God bless you

Jerry,
These portions of your argument are irrelevant. None of these other people carried Jesus Himself, the Incarnate Word of the Lord and God’s only Divine Son, in their womb.

rocketrob

 

[josie_L]

I would expect that had the apostles taught the early fathers orally, there’d be no variance in understanding either, but there was. Why was that?

Individually ECFs could have erred (although for the most part they didn’t) nevertheless it was the Magisterium (all the bishops including the Pope) that decided and/or concluded what was and wasn’t doctrine. The ECFs individually did not have this power. Which begs the question as to how individuals like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox believed they had the power and/or authority to reject doctrines and then to go on to develop their own? Why did they not agree? Wasn’t sola scriptura supposed to unite, I mean at least then, you would think. Maybe they had different interpretations of SS too.

SS hasn’t failed, but is alive and well in those churches that truly adhere to it. And as far as the plethora of opinions, Paul states their necessity so that those who are approved may become manifest (1 Cor 11:19).

Please pray tell why are there so many interpretations of SS? Is not the Bible able to define for you what SS is? Wait, there is no mention of SS in the Bible?

And unlike Catholics you can’t even fall on Tradition to help you out.

They were a bunch of rascals, weren’t they, IYO?

Oh, I wouldn’t have been so politically correct if indeed it were my opinion.

That’s irrelevant to the fact presented.

How is it irrelevant, up until the printing press, almost nobody had their own personal bibles (they were too costly) and most could not read, therefore, how can the practice of sola scriptura make sense in the first century and onwards up until the reformation, if this was the case. If my relationship with Jesus depended upon the Word of God, which you state is the Bible alone, how if I did not own a bible or was not able to read could this make sense. God would have to be cruel to institute such a doctrine at a time (pentecost) when many could not read or owned scripture (in its entirety).

And God would send others to expound that truth outside of the church which failed to uphold it.

Where is this in Scripture? Is this part of the Tradition you hold to?

My point was that the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.

Catholics do not believe that Tradition and Scripture are mutually exclusive (they are similar yet not completely so), however, Tradition does expound on matters which are not delineated (or at times alluded to) in Scriptures. For example, we know the first christians baptized using the Trinitarian formula, that they believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, that they thought the use of contraceptives was a sin, that Mary was assumed, that the act of abortion (which was never **literally **stated in the Bible) was evil, and many other things you perceive Catholics are wrong in believing.

That the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.

You think basically that Tradition is unnecessary as all is contained in within Scriptures, however, we know that John states otherwise. John 21: 24-25.

And also why did Paul command the Church/es to hold fast to Traditions if they did not contain much truth which would help in our interpretation of scriptures?

You don’t understand. I’ll post my statement to which you’re responding again:I’ve read it. In fact, I have a friend who wrote a book about it.

No I do, understood.

Tradition was/is rejected because the reformers rejected the Church, so by default Scriptures became their sole and only source of authority.

 

[josie_L]

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the "word"of God. Ralph

So lets say Ralpy you were one of the apostles, and you were commissioned by Jesus to spread the good tidings of His ministry, resurrection, and life to surrounding Jews, would you not be doing so orally (remember you spent three years with him and have yet to write any of the NT), and as such are they not hearing the Word of God. Does the Word of God have to be written in order to be accepted?

 

[centurion210]

I have a question for all the non-Catholics on this thread:

The Eucharist has been celebrated as a sacrifice since the absolute beginning of Christianity. Virtually every church father has written about it and without exception it was proclaimed as the real presence of our Lord Jesus. The Catholic and Eastern Churches always have and always will maintain this belief.

When, where, and why do all Protestant denominations declare that this is merely a symbol and not the real presence ?

 

[Benadam]

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the "word"of God. Ralph

Scriptures are a testimony and never the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.
Jesus told the pharisees that scripture is a testimony of me, but when revealing Himself to Pauul He called the persecuted faithfull 'Me".

The life of the Church in it’s wholeness as it follows the footsteps of Jesus all the way to the Cross is the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.

The Word never was and never will be only the symbols that describe life, but always was and always will be the life it describes.

The life that scripture testifies to is the primary expression of the Word of God on earth.

 

[ralphy]

So lets say Ralpy you were one of the apostles, and you were commissioned by Jesus to spread the good tidings of His ministry, resurrection, and life to surrounding Jews, would you not be doing so orally (remember you spent three years with him and have yet to write any of the NT), and as such are they not hearing the Word of God. Does the Word of God have to be written in order to be accepted?

In my opinion, anything that is not written down can never stay the same, it is extremely subjected to change, the longer the period it is passed down, the more drastic the changes will be. Therefor, oral traditions cannot be trusted. Ralph

 

[Th0t]

The only difference between the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Protestants is that if one day someone asked them to not use the Bible and to use history and tradition, Protestants wouldn’t be able to.

The Catholic Church on the other hand, was there when Jesus founded the Church, and was there with the Apostles over 2000 yrs ago and is still around and WOULD be able to defend themselves.

The Catholic Church has 2000 yrs on its belt.

Protestantism? Only about 500 yrs.

Do the math…

Why can’t ANY Protestant answer the question: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE BIBLE ITSELF IS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH FOR A CHRISTIAN???

 

[ralphy]

I have a question for all the non-Catholics on this thread:

The Eucharist has been celebrated as a sacrifice since the absolute beginning of Christianity. Virtually every church father has written about it and without exception it was proclaimed as the real presence of our Lord Jesus. The Catholic and Eastern Churches always have and always will maintain this belief.

When, where, and why do all Protestant denominations declare that this is merely a symbol and not the real presence ?

I will ask you this question as I have asked others. Where does the authority come from for the “priest” to change this piece of bread and this wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and how does he do it.?

 

[ralphy]

The only difference between the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Protestants is that if one day someone asked them to not use the Bible and to use history and tradition, Protestants wouldn’t be able to.

The Catholic Church on the other hand, was there when Jesus founded the Church, and was there with the Apostles over 2000 yrs ago and is still around and WOULD be able to defend themselves.

The Catholic Church has 2000 yrs on its belt.

Protestantism? Only about 500 yrs.

Do the math…

Why can’t ANY Protestant answer the question: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE BIBLE ITSELF IS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH FOR A CHRISTIAN???

I belong to the catholic church, not the “Roman” catholic church as you do. Ralph

 

[Benadam]

In my opinion, anything that is not written down can never stay the same, it is extremely subjected to change, the longer the period it is passed down, the more drastic the changes will be. Therefor, oral traditions cannot be trusted. Ralph

You don’t understand the transitory nature of words then. The words are attached to ideas and concepts. It’s the concepts and ideas that don’t change the symbols attached to them are inherently transitory. Rarely does a word remain attached to an idea or concept without some transition to some other idea or concept.

You got it wrong. It is entrusted to men to pass down the True Faith not entrusted to the transitory symbols man uses to record concepts and ideas.

 

[Benadam]

I belong to the catholic church, not the “Roman” catholic church as you do. Ralph

The Catholic Church was not produced by scriptures, it has always had and still does have visible and invisible boundaries, it had an oral tradition and it had a teaching handed down to teachers that are authorized and have faithfully preserved the True Faith.

If your church doesn’t look like that it doesn’t look like the Church the Apostles established.

You may belong to the Catholic Church but you are outside it’s visible boundaries.

 

[ralphy]

The Catholic Church was not produced by scriptures, it has always had and still does have visible and invisible boundaries, it had an oral tradition and it had a teaching handed down to teachers that are authorized and have faithfully preserved the True Faith.

If your church doesn’t look like that it doesn’t look like the Church the Apostles established.

You may belong to the Catholic Church but you are outside it’s visible boundaries.

Why are you call “Roman” catholics? Ralph

 

[Benadam]

Why are you call “Roman” catholics? Ralph

Over time the Bishops realized that it was the Roman See that placed the final words on the contoversies. The Holy Spirit revealed the Roman Catholic See as the Chair of Peter. The Bishops didn’t decide that Rome was the See under which the entire Church unites they were attentive to the Holy spirit and confirmed what was already true.