Sola scriptura, sola fide?

[susie_g]

I got into an interesting discussion with my father last night. He is an evangelical minister, and I was raised evangelical before converting to Catholicism as an adult. We don’t talk about my conversion much, but I am always eager for discussions with him. We’ve never had great communications with each other, and my converting hasn’t really helped much.

Anyway, last night he brought up something he had learned about the Reformation and Martin Luther. He said that the Catholic Church, from the beginning, had always been sola scriptura and sola fide, and that M.L. wanted the church to get back to that. I had always thought that sola fide, sola scriptura was kind of an invention of M.L.

Anybody else heard this argument before? I didn’t get a chance to ask him for any references to this, because my mom got all upset that we were “fighting” and all that matters is that you “love the Lord”. I was so bummed, because neither one of us was even angry, just having a great discussion. Now we probably won’t talk about it again for a really long time.

 

[VociMike]

If the Church had always been SS and SF, then Luther would have had nothing to complain about.

What he’s really saying is that the Church was originally SS and SF, and that it somehow mysteriously changed (bet he can’t point to a single drop of historical evidence for this change!), so then Luther had to come and fix things.

The simple answer is “How interesting! Can you show me some unbiased evidence?”

 

[Liberian]

Susie,

First please be sure to define EXACTLY what you mean by “sola fide” and “sola scriptura.”

Evangelicals who claim that they are saved by “faith alone” will admit, when asked in a non-threatening way, that this “faith alone” includes turning away from your sins and obeying Jesus’ commandments–in other words, pretty much what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject. Most Evangelicals (who are not Calvinists) will also, if they inspect the paragraph closely, condemn the version of “sola fide” that was condemned at the Council of Trent.

• Liberian

 

[susie_g]

Susie,

First please be sure to define EXACTLY what you mean by “sola fide” and “sola scriptura.”

Evangelicals who claim that they are saved by “faith alone” will admit, when asked in a non-threatening way, that this “faith alone” includes turning away from your sins and obeying Jesus’ commandments–in other words, pretty much what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject. Most Evangelicals (who are not Calvinists) will also, if they inspect the paragraph closely, condemn the version of “sola fide” that was condemned at the Council of Trent.

• Liberian

Actually, our disagreement had more to do with sola scriptura than sola fide. He said that the Catholic Church taught sola scriptura from the beginning. He kept saying “Why else did they close the canon?” I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, except maybe that he thinks they felt scripture was “sufficient” at that point? He heard all this about the CC from a pastor that he really likes named Earl Palmer. A lot of his sermons are on tape, and my parents like to listen to him on long car drives.

 

[Bishopite]

Actually, our disagreement had more to do with sola scriptura than sola fide. He said that the Catholic Church taught sola scriptura from the beginning. He kept saying “Why else did they close the canon?” I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, except maybe that he thinks they felt scripture was “sufficient” at that point? He heard all this about the CC from a pastor that he really likes named Earl Palmer. A lot of his sermons are on tape, and my parents like to listen to him on long car drives.

All due deference to your father, but he is incorrect and so is Earl Palmer (I did a quick search and found this…)
goodnewsline.com/sermon/view/1562/TheGreatestofThese/

The next time the subject of sola Scriptura comes up with your father ask him to show you any evidence from any time in Christian salvific history prior to the reformation where sola Scriptura was advocated since according to Earl Palmer it was advocated by the Catholic Church.
Also you might want to try to email Earl Palmer or perhaps write him a letter (try the link above) asking him for any evidence in the early Church or again, in Christian history prior to the reformation where sola Scriptura was advocated. If you get a response, then write a gracious refutation of it and keep it in your bible, so the next time you and your father dialogue about theology you can show him what Early Palmer wrote and how he is incorrect. Or if you need help answering any of there questions or comments, put it on a thread so others on this forum can help you prove and give evidence that sola Scriptura was NEVER taught prior to the reformation.

 

[susie_g]

Thank you, Bishopite. That’s what I thought, but I wasn’t sure. I really wish my mom wouldn’t have cut the dialogue off because it was getting good. Oh well. I’d been praying for opportunities to talk with him, and I’ll keep on praying. Maybe there will be a next time.

 

[Bishopite]

Thank you, Bishopite. That’s what I thought, but I wasn’t sure. I really wish my mom wouldn’t have cut the dialogue off because it was getting good. Oh well. I’d been praying for opportunities to talk with him, and I’ll keep on praying. Maybe there will be a next time.

Hey don’t mention it, don’t worry there WILL be another time, trust me, just keep studying and most of all keep praying. Pray the rosary and ask Jesus to help you.
I’m a convert also, a former anit-Catholic Baptist. One of my older brothers is a convert too a former Baptist pastoral intern and a seminary student, he’s a very good apologist. My extended family also wasn’t too pleased with his conversion to Catholicism and my brother and I had many debates with other members of the family, who made many unsubstantiated claims against Catholicism, but when we showed them many Catholic truths in Scripture, and how philosophically many of their assertions could add up, they didn’t really have much left to say, save a few emotional attacks, or what I call subjective inductive experientialism.
In time they accepted our Catholic faith and now it’s not even an issue. My brother converted first just after leaving his post as a Baptist pastoral intern in seminary, ready to be a pastor. I challenged his Catholicism year prior and we would dialogue (and argue) back and forth about theology. I read many books and heard so many debates both for and against Catholicism, then a few years later I realized the Church I had attacked as from the devil was actually what Christ established and I was then compelled to join it.
And then, if I may ramble on some more, there was my round table debate I had against four of my friends (who were also the elders my former Baptist Church) where we went back and forth about sola Scriptura, sola fide, infant baptism, the Pope, purgatory and Mary. After many months, some years, they eventually accepted my faith and things are peaceful.
Your father is probably just filtering your conversion through his emotions and thoughts. He will again bring up your faith; you should keep learning as much as you can within reason and pray when the time comes he will be more open to the fullness of truth and hope and pray for big steps, but acknowledge the real possibility of small ones.

 

[jonk]

We Catholics do believe that Scripture is materially sufficient for salvation - i.e. that all the truths necessary for salvation are contained in Scripture. It could be argued that the Evangelicals are right on this point.

We do not believe, however, that Scripture is formally sufficient. “[T]he Bible does not contain this material in a form that makes it easy to derive these truths without risk of error. You need the help of Tradition to do that. Scripture is thus materially sufficient but not formally sufficient.”

This explains why many denominations disagree with each other on the matter of salvation. It isn’t that clear cut in the Bible.

The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition