"Sola Scriptura"

[po18guy]

C’mon, what’s this? “The book” must be the Bible. The RCC claims the Bible is the Word of God. If so, then the 2 statements contradict (or am I missing something?).

1. “The Christian faith is not a religion of the book.”
2. “Christianity is the religion of the Word of God…”
   If “the book” is the Bible and the Bible is the Word of God, then statement 2 becomes:
   “Christianity is the religion of the book.” And it contradicts the first statement.

See John 1. Christ is the Word of God. The Word made Flesh. Christ is the Founder and center of our faith. The bible is a blessed assistant, but Christ is the only reason to belong to His Church. Thus, the statements make perfect sense to those who have not been lead astray by “sola scriptura”.

The bible does not teach, anywhere, that it alone is the sole rule of faith. Period. Believe otherwise? Show me the money!

 

[foundthelight]

You know what, there has been a lot of discussion on this one issue, but all along we really do not have any disagreement on this. I think the problem is that you [Catholics] become very defensive when someone says the Bible is “the final authority” or is “necessary for salvation.” You immediately suppose that this comes with it the free interpretation of Scripture. But that is not so. When we say the Bible is the final authority, does it not follow that it must also be properly interpreted? If it is not properly understood then that teaching could not be Scriptural because it is not what the Scriptures meant. And if it is not Scriptural, then it is not the final authority.

Here is how a situation would play out. Suppose you accept that the Bible is the final authority and that it is necessary for salvation. Then someone questions the validity of some belief of yours citing a text from Scripture. Would the guy prove you wrong by his interpretation of the text because you have conceded that the Bible is the final authority? Of course not. You can tell him your own interpretation (based on what your church taught) and show him where he got it wrong and why your belief is the one that must prevail. It is that simple. You don’t have to go through all that stuff about church “Tradition” being the source of your interpretation because everyone knows that is what the RCC teaches.

We, being all Christians, take our beliefs from the Bible. The fact that everyone here on this forum cites a verse from the Bible to prove his or her point is already a tacit acceptance that the Bible is the final authority. In fact, the RCC, by appealing to Mathew 16:18 to prove it is the true church, has already accepted that the Scriptures are the final authority (at least on matters of faith) and so others should use that same authority to prove their own claim. There is no point in referring to the Scriptures if we do not believe it to be the final authority.

I almost agree with you. The reason I say almost is in the question of interpretation. Scripture, tradition and teaching authority (Magisterium) are inexorably linked. The writings of the Early Church Fathers make up much of what we call tradition. These men were much closer to the Apostles then we and our language of theology is developed from them.

As questions came up concerning theological understandings, some of them quite divisive, the Church met and hashed them out thus defining proper interpretation. These interpretations are part of what we call the Magisterium.

The Reformation led to a rejection of teaching authority of the Church, and replaced it, in many cases, with individual interpretation or with the interpretation championed by strong personalities such as Calvin, Luther and Zwingli resulting in many diverse theological positions on salvation such as Methodism, Presbyterianism, Word of Faith, Pentecostals, the Anabaptists and a whole litany of others. Many Divinity Schools push their particular interpretation as the only truth. You can as will fail courses by disagreeing with the teachers theological biases.

In many congregations teaching authority is reserved by the Pastor. And may heaven help you if you disagree with that Pastor’s interpretation.

Did Christ really intend that there would be so many conflicting teachings?

Without Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium ( teaching authority) there can exist only anarchy.

 

[mattkubes]

Without Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium ( teaching authority) there can exist only anarchy.

And if nothing else, this should appeal to our sense of reason - sola scriptura doesn’t work. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[po18guy]

And if nothing else, this should appeal to our sense of reason - sola scriptura doesn’t work. Thanks for pointing that out.

Precisely! Let’s examine how individual interpretation of scripture has done in accomplishing Christ’s prayer “that they may be one, as You and I are one”?

Tragically, there are over 30,000 answers to this, when there should be but one.

The evil one destroys what God has built up. He does this by casting doubt upon the very authority that Christ gave His Church. Evil attacks it from within and from without. But, here she stands!

Christ’s peace.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Precisely! Let’s examine how individual interpretation of scripture has done in accomplishing Christ’s prayer “that they may be one, as You and I are one”?

Tragically, there are over 30,000 answers to this, when there should be but one.

The evil one destroys what God has built up. He does this by casting doubt upon the very authority that Christ gave His Church. Evil attacks it from within and from without. But, here she stands!

Christ’s peace.

But you guys aren’t one either. You guys have liberals, conservatives, traditionalists, SSPX’rs, etc. While you guys claim unity, from the outside looking in, you don’t seem so unified on quite a few issues.

Also, since your church has not taken it upon itself to define the meaning of but a handful of scriptures, don’t you too engage in the dreaded “private interpretation” of scripture? Come to think of it, don’t you engage in the “private interpretation” of the catechisms and council documents? For example I think it’s in Dei Verbum where many catholics read and believe that the document is teaching that there can be errors in scripture in matters other than faith/morals. This of course is in conflict with every other document your church put out before the 20th century, but this is what they determine using their “private interpretation”.

It is truely sad to see the division in protestant churches but it’s a little unfair to compare your one church with all others. A more fair/accurate comparison would be to compare your church to one other church.

 

[Mailman]

Dig the difference: Those who have never heard of Christ, but live according to the natural law, with love of neighbor, can be saved, because God can do anything. Contrast this to those who have heard of Christ, of His Church, and who, out of ego, reject His church. Those will have a problem, and not of this earth.

What about those who have heard of Christ, of the RCC, and who, out of a SINCERE and PRAYERFUL study of the Scriptures conclude that the RCC could not be the Church Jesus built because it rejects the teachings of Jesus and His Word, and so reject the RCC as a false church? Would they be saved?

 

[po18guy]

But you guys aren’t one either. You guys have liberals, conservatives, traditionalists, SSPX’rs, etc. While you guys claim unity, from the outside looking in, you don’t seem so unified on quite a few issues.

Also, since your church has not taken it upon itself to define the meaning of but a handful of scriptures, don’t you too engage in the dreaded “private interpretation” of scripture? Come to think of it, don’t you engage in the “private interpretation” of the catechisms and council documents? For example I think it’s in Dei Verbum where many catholics read and believe that the document is teaching that there can be errors in scripture in matters other than faith/morals. This of course is in conflict with every other document your church put out before the 20th century, but this is what they determine using their “private interpretation”.

It is truely sad to see the division in protestant churches but it’s a little unfair to compare your one church with all others. A more fair/accurate comparison would be to compare your church to one other church.

It’s truly sad that there even are Protestant Churches! We care called to be ONE in Christ. We struggle with unity, just as Christ fervently prayed to the Father that we be one. Our sinful nature causes our egos to lead us astray. But, we have a leader of the earthbound Church who teaches and chastizes and keeps us in line - who maintains the rock-solid teachings against the tides of societal change. If there are liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Demoncrats, Reform Party and Libertarians in your church, how is it united?

SSPX? They have bowed to the disobedience of ego. They are outside the Church. We’re still calling to them, though.

There is an over-arching teaching that allows some latitude in scripture. But not such that Catholics would ever propound SS, OSAS, SF and all of the other mistakes, It is impossible to “infallibly” interpret each and every word in scripture. This occurs in response to heresy. Since you don’t accept Catholicism now, why would you accept it then? You would have even more ammo for protest! The contrary mind always finds its foil in convention and orthodoxy.

Please explain how the bible teaches both baptism and non-baptism; a saving baptism and a non-saving baptism; loss of salvation and guaranteed salvation. It does not and would not, as the truth is one. In spite of your personal disagreements with the Catholic Church, it is the sole reason that Christianity still exists.

 

[foundthelight]

What about those who have heard of Christ, of the RCC, and who, out of a SINCERE and PRAYERFUL study of the Scriptures conclude that the RCC could not be the Church Jesus built because it rejects the teachings of Jesus and His Word, and so reject the RCC as a false church? Would they be saved?

In my personal opinion, no. God, however is infinitely more merciful than I.

 

[po18guy]

What about those who have heard of Christ, of the RCC, and who, out of a SINCERE and PRAYERFUL study of the Scriptures conclude that the RCC could not be the Church Jesus built because it rejects the teachings of Jesus and His Word, and so reject the RCC as a false church? Would they be saved?

Good question. The Lord only knows. They are lead by the demon, who divides, not by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit unites. We are called to submit to the Lord, not to retain our personal beliefs and desires. And, it is in that same submission, that obedience (modeled on Christ’s obedience to the Father) that we find the true faith.

 

[Mailman]

Originally Posted by Mailman
What about those who have heard of Christ, of the RCC, and who, out of a SINCERE and PRAYERFUL study of the Scriptures conclude that the RCC could not be the Church Jesus built because it rejects the teachings of Jesus and His Word, and so reject the RCC as a false church? Would they be saved?

In my personal opinion, no. God, however is infinitely more merciful than I.

What about the opinion of the RCC? Or better yet, what is the official position taken by the RCC with regards to this question?

 

[foundthelight]

What about the opinion of the RCC? Or better yet, what is the official position taken by the RCC with regards to this question?

In answer to this, I like to think back to a conversation in a manufacturing plant I was responsible for in Arlington TN.

Plant Engineer to a Contractor. “We saved a Methodist last night!”

The speaker was a member of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, TN and firmly held that all who did not say the “Sinner’s Prayer” and be baptized as an adult were condemned. An opinion I have found to be dogmatic among fundamentalist Protestant Christians.

I will contrast this with the Catechism;

[2089](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
“)”>817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

[1271](javascript:OpenPopupWindow()
“)”>818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Quite a contrast isn’t it?

 

[Pwrlftr]

It’s truly sad that there even are Protestant Churches! We care called to be ONE in Christ. We struggle with unity, just as Christ fervently prayed to the Father that we be one. Our sinful nature causes our egos to lead us astray. But, we have a leader of the earthbound Church who teaches and chastizes and keeps us in line - who maintains the rock-solid teachings against the tides of societal change. If there are liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Demoncrats, Reform Party and Libertarians in your church, how is it united?

SSPX? They have bowed to the disobedience of ego. They are outside the Church. We’re still calling to them, though.

Okay, let me ask you this. What does it mean to be “one”? How do you know when a church is “one”?

There is an over-arching teaching that allows some latitude in scripture. But not such that Catholics would ever propound SS, OSAS, SF and all of the other mistakes, It is impossible to “infallibly” interpret each and every word in scripture. This occurs in response to heresy. Since you don’t accept Catholicism now, why would you accept it then? You would have even more ammo for protest! The contrary mind always finds its foil in convention and orthodoxy.

I must not be getting my point across. Let me ask it this way. When you read the scriptures and make a determination as to what a certain verse means (one that hasn’t been officially defined by your church). Aren’t you engaging in private interpretation?

Please explain how the bible teaches both baptism and non-baptism; a saving baptism and a non-saving baptism; loss of salvation and guaranteed salvation. It does not and would not, as the truth is one. In spite of your personal disagreements with the Catholic Church, it is the sole reason that Christianity still exists.

There is only one truth, that’s not in dispute. In your parish I guarantee you will find many differing opinions on theological matters. Why turn a blind eye to that and claim unity for your church? I just don’t get it. you decry the lack of unity on various beliefs in the protestant world yet turn a blind eye to your church’s own disunity. I guess this goes back to the question I asked above. What does it mean to be “one”?

The other thing I don’t get is why do so many catholics want to compare their one church to all the other Christian churches? Wouldn’t it make more sens to compare your church to one single non-catholic church? I guess it doesn’t make you feel as good but it would be much more accurate.

 

[po18guy]

Okay, let me ask you this. What does it mean to be “one”? How do you know when a church is “one”?

When we gather to partake of the Flesh of Christ, we are one. We are not mindless robots marching in lockstep. Not even the Apostles had complete unity. It is a goal which we strive for. It is a massive job of prayer and education, as disunity results from lack of it.

I must not be getting my point across. Let me ask it this way. When you read the scriptures and make a determination as to what a certain verse means (one that hasn’t been officially defined by your church). Aren’t you engaging in private interpretation?

The Lord speaks to individual hearts, but our interpretation must coincide with overall Church teaching. That’s why we hear scripture (OT, NT, Gospel) at each mass, and why we have scripture study as well as Deacons, Priests and Bishops to teach us.

There is only one truth, that’s not in dispute. In your parish I guarantee you will find many differing opinions on theological matters. Why turn a blind eye to that and claim unity for your church? I just don’t get it. you decry the lack of unity on various beliefs in the protestant world yet turn a blind eye to your church’s own disunity. I guess this goes back to the question I asked above. What does it mean to be “one”?

But, you are using the anomalies to disprove the entire Church. This logic would condemn Plato, because he disagreed with Socrates on certain things. There are always anomalies, but one truth that is taught. Saying that some Catholics do not believe it is the same as saying that not everyone os Catholic.

The other thing I don’t get is why do so many catholics want to compare their one church to all the other Christian churches? Wouldn’t it make more sens to compare your church to one single non-catholic church? I guess it doesn’t make you feel as good but it would be much more accurate.

Simply because she traces directly back to Christ, her founder. Every, and I mean every other church has a man’s name associated with its founding. The Catholic Church has only Christ.

Truth is One. Christ is One. The Church was founded as One and is called to be One. Why pick one other tradition out of 33,000 as a sign of disunity? They all, each of them, disagree with the Catholic Church to some extent.

Each of them accepted the bible, which the early Catholic Church gave to the world. Each of them has then rejected the very authority which determined what the bible is. That is what makes no sense. That is what has fractured the Body of Christ into tiny pieces that the evil one finds easier to overcome.

You cannot separate the bible from the Church authority which canonized it. They are inseparable. No authority, no bible. Simple, but true.

 

[everready]

I vote with what is written in the bible.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

everready

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[po18guy]

I vote with what is written in the bible.

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

everready

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

OK, but which Church placed the Apocalypse in the bible, despite objections? And, did it have the authority to do so? You cannot separate the bible from the authority which canonized it. To do so invites spirits to lead you astray.

 

[everready]

OK, but which Church placed the Apocalypse in the bible, despite objections? And, did it have the authority to do so? You cannot separate the bible from the authority which canonized it. To do so invites spirits to lead you astray.

I read from the King James Version

everready

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mattkubes]

I read from the King James Version

Well obviously he meant which Church put the canon together I don’t think King James was around at the time of the early Church councils…

 

[everready]

He was there to reap the benefits, now I have that distinct pleasure.

everready

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[guanophore]

He was there to reap the benefits, now I have that distinct pleasure.

everready

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

Welcome to CAF everready. Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

 

[everready]

Welcome to CAF everready. Do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

Thanks for the warm welcome “Sola Scriptura” I prefer staying with my bible, the day I see this topic start edifying is the day I’ll discuss it until that day I see it as a means of creating strife where there was no strife .

everready

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)