"Sola Scriptura"

[Mailman]

Why should it?. Oral tradition was what Christ taught and passed down before there was a bible!

I think you are grapsing at straws!

You’re right. But you should have said “NT,” instead of “Bible,” unless your Bible does not contain the OT.

 

[Mailman]

Tradition does not and would not contradict Scripture. Scripture is a product of Tradition and complements it perfectly, otherwise it would not be sacred. and the Holy Spirit would be wrong.

The only thing Tradition would conflict with is a MISinterpretation of what Scripture says. Scripture came out of the Tradition of the Church. The only conflicts are when people take a verse from here and a verse from there out of context and try to make up their own doctrines. Scripture, read in light of the Traditions of the Church and under the guidance of the Magisterium, can never conflict with Tradition.

Ok, your assertion is that “Tradition” does not conflict with Scripture unless it is misinterpreted. My question is: Are there doctrines contained in “Tradition” that are not found in Scripture?

 

[rosarygirl7]

There are some doctrines of the Catholic Church that are not directly written out in scripture, but none that contradict it. We believe it is the Holy Spirit that keeps the Church’s teachings from error. I believe you asked before if it was scripture that did that.

 

[po18guy]

Laudater Jesus Christus!

Peace to all who read this thread.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Can we base our beliefs (faith) and practice solely/only in the Holy Scripture?

You can if you are willing to separate yourself from the one Church which Christ founded. You can if you are willing to settle for a shallow, incomplete faith with a sand foundation. You can if you do not mind constant disagreements with your brothers who have fragmented into 33,000 bits.

The bible is incomplete and tells us so. Doesn’t any bible Christian ever wonder if there is more to Christ than the tiny bit that was written?

 

[mattkubes]

Ok, your assertion is that “Tradition” does not conflict with Scripture unless it is misinterpreted. My question is: Are there doctrines contained in “Tradition” that are not found in Scripture?

Your question is kinda loaded - it assumes that Scripture supersedes Tradition. But no, there aren’t Traditions that contradict Scripture; however, just like the NT canon and the nature of the Trinity, there are some Traditions that aren’t explicit in scripture.

 

[po18guy]

You’re right. The only problem is, which church is THE Church? There’s where we are in disagreement.

If your pastor was ordained by the laying on of hands by his predessor, and he by his, and the line can be traced directly back to one of the Twelve, you have the original Church.

Each Catholic priest can trace his ordination back to one of the twelve. That is history. That is roots. That is the one true Church.

The faith is about denying yourself. If you like your church’s teachings, and they were easy to accept, are you really denying yourself?

 

[po18guy]

You’re right. But you should have said “NT,” instead of “Bible,” unless your Bible does not contain the OT.

But, there was no “Old Testament” until the Catholic Church canonized it as such. The Jews settled their canon later, in response to Christianity. Which would/should you accept?

 

[po18guy]

What IF Tradition [with a capital T], conflicts with the clear teachings in Scripture? What will prevail, Tradition or Scripture?

Please explain how “the clear teachings in Scripture” have produced 33,000 arguing denominations?!?

Ah, but there’s the rub! The teachings need proper authority and proper interpretation to be properly understood.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But, there was no “Old Testament” until the Catholic Church canonized it as such. The Jews settled their canon later, in response to Christianity. Which would/should you accept?

Are you saying that the Jews had no idea what scriptue was until the RCC made an official announcement?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Ok, your assertion is that “Tradition” does not conflict with Scripture unless it is misinterpreted. My question is: Are there doctrines contained in “Tradition” that are not found in Scripture?

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25

There is much that Jesus taught and did that is not recorded in the Bible. John tells us this.

Are the things that Jesus taught and did that are not recorded in the Bible lost to us? No.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26

Jesus did not leave us a book - he left us a Church, with the promise that “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).

It is the teachings of the Church, including Holy Scripture but not limited to it, that embody the living Word that is Jesus Christ.

To try to separate the living Tradition of the Church from Holy Scripture is to deny what Jesus Himself promised us - that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth and to bring to remembrance ALL that he said.

Sola scriptura is a false, man-made, unscriptural, heretical doctrine that has as its purpose the weakening of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is a work of the Evil One and must be absolutely rejected by all the true faithful in the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus himself 2,000 years ago.

The doctrine of sola scripture is not taught anywhere in scripture, so it is self-refuting. It goes against what Jesus promised. It has led to the splintering of the protestant sects that follow it into 30,000 different groups. It refutes itself in that sola scripture, which says all we need for salvation is in scripture, is not itself taught anywhere in scripture.

 

[Pwrlftr]

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25

So what has your church defined that Jesus did that isn’t recorded in scripture?

There is much that Jesus taught and did that is not recorded in the Bible. John tells us this.

Like what?

It refutes itself in that sola scripture, which says all we need for salvation is in scripture, is not itself taught anywhere in scripture.

So what do you need for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

 

[foundthelight]

So what do you need for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

There is much in scripture that is required for salvation that most of the 30,000+ denominations mentioned earlier deny. A denial based solely on the un-Biblical concept of Sola Fide.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

So what has your church defined that Jesus did that isn’t recorded in scripture?

Like what?

So what do you need for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

You can find a good synthesis of the Church’s teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if the Holy Spirit is guiding you to reject the unscriptural, heretical doctrine of sola scriptura. If you’re just trying to argue the point - the Truth of Jesus Christ is out there, embodied in the Catholic Church. You are free to reject or accept it as you see fit. At this point, you cannot claim ignorance of the Truth, so you will be answerable for rejecting it.

 

[Pwrlftr]

There is much in scripture that is required for salvation that most of the 30,000+ denominations mentioned earlier deny. A denial based solely on the un-Biblical concept of Sola Fide.

That doesn’t answer my question.

What is required for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

 

[Pwrlftr]

You can find a good synthesis of the Church’s teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if the Holy Spirit is guiding you to reject the unscriptural, heretical doctrine of sola scriptura. If you’re just trying to argue the point - the Truth of Jesus Christ is out there, embodied in the Catholic Church. You are free to reject or accept it as you see fit. At this point, you cannot claim ignorance of the Truth, so you will be answerable for rejecting it.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[foundthelight]

That doesn’t answer my question.

What is required for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

Nothing. What do you think we teach as required for salvation that isn’t in scripture?

 

[mattkubes]

Nothing. What do you think we teach as required for salvation that isn’t in scripture?

Exactly, since the authority of Peter is in scripture, and since the Church is the body that settles disagreements between the faithful, the question doesn’t make sense anyways.

 

[I_Believe]

How do we know that Holy Mother Church is Infallible; is this not from interpreting the Scriptures?

**And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **

It’s right there. There is nothing to interpret.

 

[po18guy]

That doesn’t answer my question.

What is required for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?

Consider this: If you believe Christ, even one word He said, you must also believe that He founded His Church with authority on earth. If you deny that authority, you deny the truth of Christ.

A better question is “Is it possible to be saved while denying the authority of Christ’s church?”

You cannot separate the bible from the authority that canonized it. Only that authority was empowered by Christ to discern the inspiration behind scripture. Once you forcefully separate the book from its publisher, you are lead into error.

Scripture is the “what”. The Church is the “How”.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Consider this: If you believe Christ, even one word He said, you must also believe that He founded His Church with authority on earth. If you deny that authority, you deny the truth of Christ.

So is this in line with the teaching authority of your church? Does the magesterium say that I deny the truth of Christ (whatever that may mean)?

A better question is “Is it possible to be saved while denying the authority of Christ’s church?”

Apparently your church seems to think so. Apparently one need not even recognize Christ to be saved.

You cannot separate the bible from the authority that canonized it. Only that authority was empowered by Christ to discern the inspiration behind scripture. Once you forcefully separate the book from its publisher, you are lead into error.

The Jews seemed to be able to function without your church’s authority and were able to recognize scripture…at least the OT. The early Christians seemed to be able to function without having an infallible statement as to the canon. So, I’m not sure how much force your above statement has or maybe I don’t understand what you are trying to say.