Sola Scriptura

[lil_lady]

Does the Bible contain everything we need to know about our faith? I know the Bible does contain a TON of information about our fatith, but does it contain all of it? Catholic tradition is a large part of our faith as well. So can we get all we need to know about our faith simply from the Bible or are there other sources such as the Pope, the Magesterium, Catholic tradition, etc. Thanks for all your help.

 

[Exporter]

That was a beautiful question lil lady. If you were a Protestant you would be told that all you need to gain salvation and get to heaven is in the Bible.

The Magesterium was instituted by Christ Himself when the told Cephas/Simon/Peter that He would give the Keys to the Kingdom of God to him(Peter). Jesus said He would be with His Church until the end, so He is with the Pope and the Bishops who make up the Magesterium. They decide on questions of faith and morals. Of course the decide what is correct to be taught to us.

The Magesterium cannot validly make a proclumation that is in opposition to Scripture. You asked is all needed is in the Bible. There is so much Oral Tradition used by the Church we must use what the Magesterium has promulgated. If you asked the average man what does it take to go to heaven…you may have many answers. I will not venture to say absolutely that the “Bibly Only”, Sola Scriptura theory will not get you to heaven. But I will say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church will get you there! The Catechism agrees with the Bible!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Does the Bible contain everything we need to know about our faith?

No. The bible itself says that no everything was written down but revealed to the church fathers by the Holy Spirit.

 

[rcwhiteh]

Lil_lady - Check out this article (click here) on the Catholic Answers website; it does a very good job of answering your question.

Peace be with you,
rcwhiteh

 

[MartinJude]

Hello Christine,

This is the first time that I have posted anything on this site. However, I am a 1st year student for the Permanent Diaconate in Scotland. I have been asked to 'explain, in an essay, why the 2nd Vatican Council teaches that Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are all needed if God’s Revelation is to be passesd on to us. I would be very interested in the answers that you receive from your question about the Bible.

Sincerely

Martin Jude

 

[veryconfused]

lil_lady:

Does the Bible contain everything we need to know about our faith? I know the Bible does contain a TON of information about our fatith, but does it contain all of it? Catholic tradition is a large part of our faith as well. So can we get all we need to know about our faith simply from the Bible or are there other sources such as the Pope, the Magesterium, Catholic tradition, etc. Thanks for all your help.

As an embryonic Catholic, I would say ‘yes’. However!, the Bible does not predict things such as the internet, or contraception, or abortion (please correct me if I’m wrong about that) or even Al-Quaida (spelling|?).
Did not Jesus speak largely in parables?
Many have suggested to me that I examine history, eg, read the early church fathers. Try here…
biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/INDEX.HTM

or here

catholicculture.org/docs/most/browse.cfm

I know…It’s scary isn’t it? So much to take in. And often in ye olde English …
But I honestly believe that there is the Truth within here.
I don’t know where this comes from, but ‘seek and ye shall find’.

 

[peoplemaker39]

The Bible does not teach everything we need to know about our faith - it teaches everyting we need to know about the message of salvation. The Bible cannot be added to - but it must be reflected on…

Faith is a gift from God and it is an invitation on a journey to receive salvation - in this life and in the world to come…

The Church interprets the Bible and teaches how its principles apply in our lives.

The Word itself speaks to the heart of readers and leads them on a journey of conversion to God…

For inspiration - learn about the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, find a spiritual guide and begin -

peace
annie

 

[BayCityRickL]

The preceding posts touch on the most important points. There are many threads that deal with the ‘bible only’ questions.

the church existed for a couple hundred years until the new testament part of the bible was completed and the entire canon of scripture was being firmed up.

Observe: A lot of the new testament letters were written to existing communities, so the Church was growing and being established before the writings even existed.

Observe: you can read some of the longer new testament letters and not get a complete picture of the faith. It was not even the purpose of those letters to attempt that.

Observe: important issues such as the Holy Trinity were not formed until hundreds of years after Pentecost.

So, notwithstanding Vatican II saying that we need scripture, tradition, and magisterium, I say we need the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith from God the Father as well.

 

[fcozen]

Exporter:

That was a beautiful question lil lady. If you were a Protestant you would be told that all you need to gain salvation and get to heaven is in the Bible.

The Magesterium was instituted by Christ Himself when the told Cephas/Simon/Peter that He would give the Keys to the Kingdom of God to him(Peter). Jesus said He would be with His Church until the end, so He is with the Pope and the Bishops who make up the Magesterium. They decide on questions of faith and morals. Of course the decide what is correct to be taught to us.

The Magesterium cannot validly make a proclumation that is in opposition to Scripture. You asked is all needed is in the Bible. There is so much Oral Tradition used by the Church we must use what the Magesterium has promulgated. If you asked the average man what does it take to go to heaven…you may have many answers. I will not venture to say absolutely that the “Bibly Only”, Sola Scriptura theory will not get you to heaven. But I will say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church will get you there! The Catechism agrees with the Bible!

Amen. i coudnt agree with you more.

 

[Asimis]

Sola Scriptura is not biblical and it is quite a fallacious position. How does someone figures out the Trinity by using scripture alone? They can’t, they have to borow from Sacred Tradition in order to understand or even get to know it.

As much as the people who hold the Sola Scriptura view deny it they still “borrow” what suits them from the Catholic position.

They don’t rely on scripture alone.

 

[jeffreedy789]

if sola scriptura were a tenable position, one might expect to find it within the pages of scripture.

one does not.

what one DOES find are many exhortations to follow not only the written word, but what the disciples were teaching ‘by word of mouth’. this ‘word of mouth’ is what we know today (along with other revelations and discernments by the church) as Tradition and the Magesterium.

so if you do what scripture says, you’ll obey the church. you have to disobey scripture to hold a sola scriptura position.

ironic, no?

 

[michaelp]

Sola Scriptura is not biblical and it is quite a fallacious position. How does someone figures out the Trinity by using scripture alone?

This is a position that cannot stand. I do not believe that history attests to this. The Trinity is taught in Scripture and can be defended and established from Scripture alone. I believe that even the RCC would agree with this.

The Trinity is simply a word that describes a biblically taught reality. It simply says that . . .

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. And that they are not each identical in person.

Are you really saying that the Bible does not teach this? Or better put, are you really saying that someone could not come to these conclusions using the Scripture alone?

It is a wonder how people who don’t adhere to infallible tradition do.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

if sola scriptura were a tenable position, one might expect to find it within the pages of scripture.

one does not.

Interesting concept. Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of revelation that is availible to us (note: not the only source which would be nula scriptura). In other words, it is the only thing that is theoneustos ("God Breathed’). It never says that there is anything else that is theoneustos. Therefore, Scripture alone is theoneustos. So, indirectly, sola scriptura is taught in Scripture. Unless you have a passage somewhere that teaches the tradition is theoneustos. Do you?

 

[Maccabees]

michaelp:

Interesting concept. Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of revelation that is availible to us (note: not the only source which would be nula scriptura). In other words, it is the only thing that is theoneustos ("God Breathed’). It never says that there is anything else that is theoneustos. Therefore, Scripture alone is theoneustos. So, indirectly, sola scriptura is taught in Scripture. Unless you have a passage somewhere that teaches the tradition is theoneustos. Do you?

Catholics agree that scripture is God breathed. Tradition works with scripture it helps us to find out the interpretation. You are putting up a false argument that scripture is verses tradition they work together its not an either or situation. Also the protestant notion that scripture is the only infallible source of revelation is rendered false by the many conflicting interpretation that come out scripture alone. Scripture is inerrant not infallible.
Scripture may be God breathed but in the hands of a Oneness Pentecostal or Jehovah’s Witness it is dangerous weapon in the hands of heretics. The Bible ceases to be infallible in their hands or any other interpreter apart from Christ church which is the only pillar and foundation of the truth.
Only working in union with church tradition can we have an infallible interpretation of scripture. By itself scripture is merely inerrant. As soon as a church apart from the catholic church interprets the Bible it ceases to be infallible as it is subject to multiple false interpretations.The holy spirit cannot contradict itself and teach contradicting interpretations and neither can the Bible. That is what happens when you have Sola Scriptura. The catholic church is guided by the one holy spirit that guided the church and inspired the scripture they are complimentary and Dependant on one another. Without the church we don’t have the Bible. Without the church we don’t have an infallible interpreter of the Bible.
Without the church we would merely have our best guess on what the Bible really means. Would Jesus leave us hung out to dry arguing over text or would he provide us a comforter and a guide that would be with us always and guide us into all truth?

 

[gardenswithkids]

Scripture is still infallible. But interpretation of scripture can be wrong. The Catechism teaches truth, but some people fail to understand it correctly. Just because someone misunderstands what the Bible or the Catechism says, doesn’t mean that either is wrong.

The Bible is not the only infallible source of revalation that is available. In fact, few protestants even hold to scripture alone. Protestant services focus on their preacher’s interpretation of scripture, not just on scripture. If protestants really believed in scripture alone, their preachers would just stand up, read a passage from the Bible, then sit down and sing some songs. They don’t do that. They read the Bible with great love and devotion, but they look to others to explain what it is they just read. In fact, many don’t even read the scripture straight out like we do in the Catholic Liturgy of the Word–they pick and choose what they’ll read and then take it apart verse by verse while they explain what they think each verse means.

My husband’s aunt once told me that scripture was the only thing she used. I actually felt sad for her because it is the only thing she has. There is so much responcibility placed on a believer to find the right church, the right interpretation, etc. when they are left only with a beautiful book that they don’t know how to use. This aunt has been searching and searching, landing in cults, and wasting her life. She really loves the Lord! But the ONLY thing she uses to find Him is the Bible, and she keeps searching for the right interpretation.

Sola scriptura leaves a person alone with their Bible. That’s a good place to start. But Jesus didn’t come to hand us a book; He came to establish His Church–the Catholic Church.

 

[Asimis]

michaelp:

This is a position that cannot stand. I do not believe that history attests to this. The Trinity is taught in Scripture and can be defended and established from Scripture alone. I believe that even the RCC would agree with this.

The Trinity is simply a word that describes a biblically taught reality. It simply says that . . .

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. And that they are not each identical in person.

Are you really saying that the Bible does not teach this? Or better put, are you really saying that someone could not come to these conclusions using the Scripture alone?

It is a wonder how people who don’t adhere to infallible tradition do.

Michael

I contend that Sacred Scripture cannot tell you the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity, this is why there were Arians in the fourth centuries who denied it,there were also some who claimed that they were three different natures, there were also the gnostics who denied Jesus’ humanity, others denied his divinity and muslims consider him just a prophet all by using the same Bible. So who is right? How do we know it by using only The Bible?

The Bible needs an equally divinely inspired interpreter in order to avoide any conflics and to avoid misleading people into false doctrines. That interpreter is the Catholic Church.

Once man starts to rely on his own subjective interpretation of God’s Word then the conflicts and divisions start to come up, hence why there are more than 30,000 Christian denominations.

 

[Katholikos]

michaelp:

This is a position that cannot stand. I do not believe that history attests to this. The Trinity is taught in Scripture and can be defended and established from Scripture alone. I believe that even the RCC would agree with this.

The Trinity is simply a word that describes a biblically taught reality. It simply says that . . .

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. And that they are not each identical in person.

Are you really saying that the Bible does not teach this? Or better put, are you really saying that someone could not come to these conclusions using the Scripture alone?

It is a wonder how people who don’t adhere to infallible tradition do.

Michael

The NT does not define the Trinity. You (and other Trinity-believing Protestants) read the Trinity INTO the Scriptures – eisogesis – rather than reading what the Scriptures are actually saying – exegesis. The Catholic Church would agree that the Trinity can be deduced from the Scriptures; it is implied, but not stated clearly. And not all who call themselves “Christian” read the Scriptures and see “Trinity.” The heresy of Arianism raged for centuries; Arius and his adherents certainly did not find the Trinity in the Scriptures. Neither do modern-day Arians (JWs) – nor do the Oneness Pentecostals, who espouse another heresy: Sabellianism.

The definition of the Trinity is summarized in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

You’re getting close to the Mormon heresy when you identify the Trinity as three Gods. The Trinity is much more than that.

It was not until Luther cut himself off from the Church that he invented Sola Scriptura as the sole rule of faith and morals for his followers. It is a doctrine born of necessity, and never heard of before 1517. It was not taught by Jesus and the Apostles nor believed by any Christian until the 16th century, as can be seen from the historical record.

Saced Apostolic Tradition informs and guides the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It works like this: We know from Sacred Apostolic Tradition that the Apostles taught (x). Therefore the Scriptures mean (x) and cannot mean .

The Apostles did not teach one doctrine and the Sacred Scriptures another opposing and conflicting doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches what she learned from the Apostles before the NT was ever written. Most of her teachings were written into the New Testament – either expressed or implied. Nothing she teaches is contrary to Sacred Scripture. The Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church.

The New Testament is not an instruction book in Christianity. Original Christianity is the sum total of the teachings of the Apostles delivered once for all to the Catholic Church (Jude 3) and through the Church to the world. Some of what they taught was written down and became “Scripture.” The rest was preserved in other ways and handed down through Sacred Apostolic Tradition from the first century to the present day. The NT itself is the oral tradition of the Apostles reduced to writing.

Sola Scriptura is unhistorical, unbiblical, and untenable, and untrue.

JMJ Jay

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

. Unless you have a passage somewhere that teaches the tradition is theoneustos. Do you?

2 Thess. 2:15

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

 

[Katholikos]

michaelp:

Interesting concept. Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of revelation that is availible to us (note: not the only source which would be nula scriptura). In other words, it is the only thing that is theoneustos ("God Breathed’). It never says that there is anything else that is theoneustos. Therefore, Scripture alone is theoneustos. So, indirectly, sola scriptura is taught in Scripture. Unless you have a passage somewhere that teaches the tradition is theoneustos. Do you?

Scripture alone does not claim to be theoneustos. You have read that into the Scriptures, not out of them. It was the Catholic Church that first declared the collection of Scriptures she canonized – and no other – to be God-breathed.

The Bible is a collection of writings – a library – not a single continuous book. There is no God-given list of the writings that belong in the Bible. Therefore, each writing would have to declare itself theoneustos in order for your theory to hold up.

Case dismissed.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Of what use is an inerrant book without an infallible teacher? (The Bible isn’t infallible – it’s inerrant.) If the Catholic Church wasn’t infallible in selecting the contents of the Bible, your Bible is in question. If it was infallible then, why not now? The Holy Spirit which guides the Church is infallible (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15). Therefore the Church is infallible (preserved from error) when teaching Faith and morals. That includes when she named the canon of Scriptures and interprets the Scriptures. The Church is the only rightful interpreter of the Scriptures.

The Bible in Protestant hands is stolen property. (I “borrowed” that last line from homepage.mac.com/edwardyew/Conversion/Menu50.html)

JMJ Jay