Sola Scriptura Silence

[Benadam]

I really think scripture would have to be either silent or loud in regards of the concept of sola scriptura. No inbetween. If scripture were supposed to be the sole source of faith there would be shouts of it’s central role within it. I mean statements like " keep these letters among you for a time will come when you will bear no teaching from men and in our written teaching alone will be found true faith and your salvation".I hope you get my meaning.

But the fact that scriptures paint a vision of a community that will continuously pass down the True Faith albeit barely makin’ it, all the way till Jesus comes, in addition to the silence, makes difficult believing out of sola scriptura

 

[Jerry_Marino]

if God was capable of protecting mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? therefore, mary being sinless is neither necessary or Biblical.

seeing that this thread is on sola scriptura, i would expect you to understand my views on this matter but of course like one of your catholic brothers has stated it is irrelevant.

the problem with this doctrine first and foremost like i stated above, it is not biblical. also, as you and others can see this doctrine takes the focus off of Jesus Christ towards mary. which is against what the Bible teaches.

this doctrine as you so eloquently have stated doesn’t really hold much water cause you would have to go through the whole blood line of Christ to purify His blood and we know that they were plenty of sinners in His blood line. rahab being the most significant sinner of all and yet God chose her, why?

God bless

 

[Jerry_Marino]

I really think scripture would have to be either silent or loud in regards of the concept of sola scriptura. No inbetween. If scripture were supposed to be the sole source of faith there would be shouts of it’s central role within it. I mean statements like " keep these letters among you for a time will come when you will bear no teaching from men and in our written teaching alone will be found true faith and your salvation".I hope you get my meaning.

But the fact that scriptures paint a vision of a community that will continuously pass down the True Faith albeit barely makin’ it, all the way till Jesus comes, in addition to the silence, makes difficult believing out of sola scriptura

2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

*Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language.*

God bless

 

[bullfrog654]

i believe at times such as the book cross and the switch blade one must walk among the sinners to find the true meaning in life. that of which i recomend watching logans run.

with this said god doesnt suggest in scripture that the rightious path is easy actually he makes it extreamely difficult and we all fall within the BIG TRAP me voluntarily so to suggest deplicate paths are not to be twisted and spit out because no one wants to follow the path or feed on it or measure it.

 

[SteveGC]

if God was capable of protecting mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? therefore, mary being sinless is neither necessary or Biblical.

seeing that this thread is on sola scriptura, i would expect you to understand my views on this matter but of course like one of your catholic brothers has stated it is irrelevant.

the problem with this doctrine first and foremost like i stated above, it is not biblical. also, as you and others can see this doctrine takes the focus off of Jesus Christ towards mary. which is against what the Bible teaches.

this doctrine as you so eloquently have stated doesn’t really hold much water cause you would have to go through the whole blood line of Christ to purify His blood and we know that they were plenty of sinners in His blood line. rahab being the most significant sinner of all and yet God chose her, why?

God bless

It wasn’t about protecting Jesus from sin, Jerry. It was about making a suitable vessel for His coming…a vessel fit for a King. The King is the King regardless of the vessel, but Mary was the ark of the new covenant, and like the ark of the old, she was immaculately created. Like the ark was fit to carry the Word of God in the old (the commandments), she was made fit to carry the Word made Flesh in the new (Jesus, the King of kings). She doesn’t take away from Jesus…on the contrary…her soul magnifies the Lord (Lk 1:46). That’s her purpose, Jerry…to draw us nearer to her Son, our Lord.

As for your comment that rocketrob thinks scripture is irrelevant, you are taking him out of context, Jerry, to suit your agenda that proclaims Catholics belittle Sacred Scripture. You debate unfairly when you do this. He merely pointed out that your argument about the geneology was irrelevant to the immaculate conception of Mary. God did not need to have Mary’s bloodline immaculately conceived in order to create her immaculately. To think that God is bound to the limitations of bodily DNA transmission, and therefore couldn’t have Mary conceived purely unless her mother was too, is silly.

Furthermore, all the doctrine related to her is not contrary to Scripture, Jerry. Much of it is implicit, and found within the broader, contextual understanding (which The Church possesses) of the entire biblical story of salvation. You long for a specific verse that just spells everything out clearly for you, but you fail to realize that Scripture was never intended to be used for that purpose. This is why you will be forever frustrated with Catholicism, all the while missing out on the fullness She possesses, as granted by Christ.

God Bless

 

[SteveGC]

2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

*Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language.*

God bless

First of all, that doesn’t infer sole authority, and you know it. This verse also says nothing about HOW scripture is meant to be taught, just that it’s useful for every good work (which Catholics agree with). Nowhere in scripture do we have anyone telling anyone to read Scripture on their own, outside authoritative human teaching, with a prayer to the Spirit. Nowhere. In fact, the Ethiopian Eunich is scriptural proof that this SHOULDN’T be done. You would have to atleast show where this is even implied in all of scripture, for anyone to start considering that believers can glean truths on their own, outside of apostolic human teaching, from the Bible.

 

[rocketrob]

As for your comment that rocketrob thinks scripture is irrelevant, you are taking him out of context…He merely pointed out that your argument about the geneology was irrelevant to the immaculate conception of Mary. God did not need to have Mary’s bloodline immaculately conceived in order to create her immaculately. To think that God is bound to the limitations of bodily DNA transmission, and therefore couldn’t have Mary conceived purely unless her mother was too, is silly.

Furthermore, all the doctrine related to her is not contrary to Scripture…Much of it is implicit, and found within the broader, contextual understanding (which The Church possesses) of the entire biblical story of salvation. You long for a specific verse that just spells everything out clearly for you, but you fail to realize that Scripture was never intended to be used for that purpose. This is why you will be forever frustrated with Catholicism, all the while missing out on the fullness She possesses, as granted by Christ.

God Bless

Thank you…couldn’t have said it better myself.

For those of you silently reading this particular thread, I will be celbrating my 10th year as a Catholic this Easter. Before that, I was a Protestant who was opposed to what I thought the Catholic Church taught and represented, like many other Catholics now posting on these forums. My personal experience can be briefly summed up by the following quote from the late Bishop Fulton Sheen:

“Not 100 in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

To really decide if you truly agree or disagree with the Catholic Church, you need to know *for yourself *what the Church actually teaches. If you are moved to sincerely pursue this endeavor, I highly recommend the following book: “Catholic and Christian” by Alan Shreck

amazon.com/Catholic-Christian-Explanation-Commonly-Misunderstood/dp/0867165995/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239202973&sr=8-1

I also recommend going to the Catholic Catechism itself:

usccb.org/catechism/text/

Sincerely,
rocketrob

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

For those of you silently reading this particular thread, I will be celbrating my 10th year as a Catholic this Easter. Before that, I was a Protestant who was opposed to what I thought the Catholic Church taught and represented, like many other Catholics now posting on these forums.

Congratulations, Rob. I know and associate with a lot of former protestants who have become Catholics. They are among the most fervent for the Faith and the most knowledgeable. You’re a good example. God bless you.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

First of all, that doesn’t infer sole authority, and you know it. This verse also says nothing about HOW scripture is meant to be taught, just that it’s useful for every good work (which Catholics agree with). Nowhere in scripture do we have anyone telling anyone to read Scripture on their own, outside authoritative human teaching, with a prayer to the Spirit. Nowhere. In fact, the Ethiopian Eunich is scriptural proof that this SHOULDN’T be done. You would have to atleast show where this is even implied in all of scripture, for anyone to start considering that believers can glean truths on their own, outside of apostolic human teaching, from the Bible.

Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. 32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 33 In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.” 34 Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him. 36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?"

*Philip is brought alongside the carriage at the very moment when the Ethiopian is pondering the meaning of Isaiah 53:7-8, a passage that Christianity, from its earliest origins, has applied to Jesus.

(v37)The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "*

it was all done according to scripture, the eunuch was reading and phillip began to explain to the passage which from which he proclaimed Christ.

God bless

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

The variance in understanding among the ECFs doesn’t mean they were not taught by the Apostles, it means the Apostles didn’t go far enough in their teaching.

Then you should be able to list those ECFs personally taught by the apostles and which doctrines each was taught by which apostle, and cite the sources.
Ferde Rombola:

Would you care to give us your definition of success? Your statement is absurd on its face. There are literally thousands of protestant sects which adhere to SS. They all disagree about what Scripture teaches and they’re all certain they’re right. Just as you’re certain you’re right.

And you’re another one of them, who also is certain he’s right.
Ferde Rombola:

More protestant nonsense. In your citation to Corinthians, Paul is talking about their behavior, not doctrine. If he meant differences in doctrine, he would have corrected their doctrinal errors.

My friend, if you can buy into Lk 1:28 saying that Mary was immaculately conceived, and all of the other baggage that accompanies that dogma, you shouldn’t have a problem with my using the verse in 1 Corinthians in a general application with respect to doctrinal difference.
Ferde Rombola:

The ex-Catholic heretics of the 16th Century? Would they were merely rascals. Luther was a profane boor who had no idea what he believed. Zwingli was an adulterer; Calvin was a murderer, and worse, a lawyer. They were all liars.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, eh? :ehh:
Ferde Rombola:

Wait a minute. Teaching by mouth is the genesis of tradition. If it’s valid, SS isn’t. Make up your mind.

Again, implicit in that statement is, what is written by the writers of scripture differs from what was spoken by the same. The burden of proof is yours.
Ferde Rombola:

By “vary” I assume you mean ‘differ.’ You have no way to know that. Without some documentation that’s just an opinon. Like the rest of what I laughingly call ‘protestant theology.’

Again, the verses cited by Catholics concerning “tradition” contain the tradition spoken of in the passage. If you say the apostles delivered tradition that was not written down, you must prove that by citing others who make the claim that this or that apostle taught them this or that tradition.

 

[Howie01]

josie L:

So individuals like Calvin, Luther did not err, but a couple hundred bishops (some of whom knew and were taught by the apostles) acting together did.

I never made a comparison between the reformers and the fathers, you’re the one doing that.
josie L:

This did not affect our doctrine.

Just the answer I was looking for. Neither have disagreements between the reformers affected my doctrine, and the doctrine of those churches which adhere to SS, just as all of the other denominations whose doctrines are peculiar to them don’t affect my doctrine, and just as my doctrine doesn’t affect yours.
josie L:

Do you think that God who knowingly understood the sinful nature of man would then leave it up to the individual to interpret, for that is what SS irrespectively does?

Take a look around and then, you tell me.
josie L:

Don’t you think he would have created a system that would not allow error to overrun his Church? Ask yourself which Church has remained true to its doctrines for two millenia?

The church is always in danger of being overrun by false teachers, Josie, thus all of the warnings against false teachers.
josie L:

The assumption of Mary is what I was refering to when I wrote that (believing in her assumption does not contradict scriptures as we already have two examples in the Bible of people being assumed into Heaven).

Wonderful; is there nothing you wouldn’t believe should the church declare it so?
josie L:

What you request is impossibly time-consuming and rather ridiculous, and you know it.

It’s not a ridiculous request, but you wish to make it seem so because you can’t fulfill it.
josie L:

Implicit in your statement is the idea that what wasn’t written wasn’t necessary to equip one for every good work, the burden of proof is on you to make the case. Cite the fathers, oh wait, do you bother to read the ECFs.

I don’t need to cite the fathers, Josie, the proof is in the passage, 2 Tim 3:14-17.
josie L:

Implicit in your statement is the idea that traditions cited are also written down in the verses, prove it. The burden of proof is on you as you are assuming it is such.

I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread with the verse cited.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Then you should be able to list those ECFs personally taught by the apostles and which doctrines each was taught by which apostle, and cite the sources.

Great idea. I’ll get right to it and spend a couple of weeks doing your homework for you. No sale, pal. Do your own homework. I’ve done mine. And you’re supposed to know this stuff before you get into a discussion of Christian theology and doctrine. Tradition, by definintion, is not written. Your rhetoric indicates you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

And you’re another one of them, who also is certain he’s right.

Wrong again. I’m certain the Catholic Church is right. Which of your 34,000 sects is right? All of them? Any of them? Or just you?

My friend, if you can buy into Lk 1:28 saying that Mary was immaculately conceived, and all of the other baggage that accompanies that dogma, you shouldn’t have a problem with my using the verse in 1 Corinthians in a general application with respect to doctrinal difference.

You changed the subject, which is what protestants to when they have nothing to say. Your citation from Corinthians doesn’t say what you want it to say. That’s the subject you dodged.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, eh? :ehh:

Sounds like the ‘so’s-your-old-man’ argument. Am I debating a 10 year old boy? Your ancestors, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were vile, hate-filled men. That’s the subject you dodged.

Again, implicit in that statement is, what is written by the writers of scripture differs from what was spoken by the same. The burden of proof is yours.

Athiests love to play that card. They have no burden of proof; only believers do. Again, you’re presenting yourself as someone who’s capable of debating these topics. You should know the information you’re demanding I produce for you. If you don’t know it, start reading.

Again, the verses cited by Catholics concerning “tradition” contain the tradition spoken of in the passage. If you say the apostles delivered tradition that was not written down, you must prove that by citing others who make the claim that this or that apostle taught them this or that tradition.

Your first sentence is not true and if you think it is, prove it. From Scripture, of course. The rest of has been covered.

 

[ralphy]

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.

How did the Holy Spirit reveal that the Roman Catholic See was the Chair of Peter? Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

Acts 8:30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him. 32 This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth. 33 In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.” 34 Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him. 36 As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?"

*Philip is brought alongside the carriage at the very moment when the Ethiopian is pondering the meaning of Isaiah 53:7-8, a passage that Christianity, from its earliest origins, has applied to Jesus.

(v37)The oldest and best manuscripts of Acts omit this verse, which is a Western text reading: "And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he said in reply, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ "*

it was all done according to scripture, the eunuch was reading and phillip began to explain to the passage which from which he proclaimed Christ.

God bless

Jerry, my friend. What is your point here?

You are simply proving here that human teaching has primacy, that it is clearly required as opposed to a sole believer attempting to read and discern Scripture on their own.

Please help me here with your argument that we are to read Scripture on our own.

God Bless

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

Tradition, by definintion, is not written. Your rhetoric indicates you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

That’s the answer I’m looking for. But what you do know is, they’re apostolic, right? Why should I believe what you’re trying to convince me of is true when you can’t prove it?
Ferde Rombola:

Wrong again. I’m certain the Catholic Church is right.

I’m certain you’re certain, Ferde. Who isn’t certain that what they believe is right?
Ferde Rombola:

Which of your 34,000 sects is right? All of them? Any of them? Or just you?

Gee, Ferde, why would I be where I am if I thought that you, or the guy ‘cross town had the truth? Hellōoo…
Ferde Rombola:

You changed the subject, which is what protestants to when they have nothing to say. Your citation from Corinthians doesn’t say what you want it to say. That’s the subject you dodged.

And accusing others of dodging is what Catholics do when they have nothing to say. There’s nothing wrong with using the 1 Cor 11 the way I have; it fits.
Ferde Rombola:

Sounds like the ‘so’s-your-old-man’ argument. Am I debating a 10 year old boy? Your ancestors, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were vile, hate-filled men. That’s the subject you dodged.

I’m a mature Christian who’s extending charity to you by reminding you that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. :ehh:
Ferde Rombola:

Your first sentence is not true and if you think it is, prove it. From Scripture, of course. The rest of has been covered.

I’ve already proved it with one verse in my first post on the first page of this thread, Ferde.

 

[Benadam]

2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Useful for teaching . . . every good work: because as God’s word the scriptures share his divine authority. It is exercised through those who are ministers of the word.

All scripture is inspired by God: this could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for. . . .” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language.

God bless

you believe that because it was taught by men invested with authority but you might not if it was taught by men we could pick and choose from.

Protestant ministers recognize the bible as authoritative and Truth has in it’self an authority that has an interior effect. OTOH there isn’t a single protestant minister that exercises divine authority. That kind of authority claims to teach the True Faith. An authority that claims to be the enterpreter of scripture. A teaching authority we are obligated to believe just as we believed the apostles. It’s the same teaching authority. Teachers that we can pick and choose to believe or not believe are teaching opinions not teaching with divine authority.

Plain and simple, the bible cannot exercise authority.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

How did the Holy Spirit reveal that the Roman Catholic See was the Chair of Peter? Ralph

Fed-Ex.

 

[ralphy]

Fed-Ex.

I will assume that it was Fed-Ex ground and not air, but do you know who received it. Ralph

 

[Benadam]

Fed-Ex.

The Holy Spirit usually doesn’t reveal something as a singular event.

Over time a pattern emerges that when noticed seems to defy odds. Then, when after it’s noticed and it becomes a predictable observation, then it becomes certain that something that has been happening was always happening and the question becomes will it continue and if so what does it mean?

In the case of the see of Rome it was the succession handed down from Peter. It became certain to those who experienced it that the Holy Spirit was bringing to mind what was given us from Jesus since the beginning. Peter’s role as head apostle was made certain because The authority passed down from him had been pronouncing the final word on things all along. The succession of Rome was handed down from Peter.

Something like that

 

[Benadam]

How did the Holy Spirit reveal that the Roman Catholic See was the Chair of Peter? Ralph

The Holy Spirit usually doesn’t reveal something as a singular event.

Over time a pattern emerges that when noticed seems to defy odds. Then, when after it’s noticed and it becomes a predictable observation, then it becomes certain that something that has been happening was always happening and the question becomes will it continue and if so what does it mean?

In the case of the see of Rome it was the succession handed down from Peter. It became certain to those who experienced it that the Holy Spirit was bringing to mind what was given us from Jesus since the beginning. Peter’s role as head apostle was made certain because The authority passed down from him had been pronouncing the final word on things all along. The succession of Rome was handed down from Peter.

Something like that