"Sola Scriptura"

[guanophore]

And why would your disagreement with me make me wrong? And there’s nothing I can to do to be correct so I would have to agree with you? Well, I won’t say anything then. Just think that I have agreed with you. If you believe on that lie long enough, you may just be able to convince yourself that I really agreed with you.

This post accurately illustrates why SS does not work. It is the mind and heart of the reader that is the arbitor of truth.

 

[po18guy]

This post accurately illustrates why SS does not work. It is the mind and heart of the reader that is the arbitor of truth.

1 John 4:1
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

This is but one of the passages which refers to spirits which lead astray. Sadly, so many trust whichever spirit leads them, without realizing that good fruit must be produced. Division, discord and rivalry are not good fruits.

Unity in the One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, is the only good fruit.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Mailman]

Of course you misrepresent Polycarp with this, but that’s not unusual.

First, the date for Easter is not a matter of dogma, so he can indeed disagree on that and still be exactly what he was. A Catholic saint.

You will agree with me that Easter is the chief of the Catholic holidays because that is supposed to be the day of Christ’s resurrection. This event is so important to the Catholic faith that the Catholic Church even changed God’s Sabbath commandment to Sunday to honor Christ’s supposed resurrection on that day.

From CCC 2174: “For Christians, it [Sunday] has become the first of all days, THE FIRST OF ALL FEASTS, the Lord’s Day, Sunday: ‘We all gather on the day of the Sun, for it is the first day when God, separating matter for darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead (Justin Martyr).’”

Someone who does not observe such an important and highly significant festival of the church could not be identified to belong to that church. When many refused to observe Easter Sunday in spite of the decision reached at the Council of Nicaea, Constantine issued an edict declaring: “We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies… public or private” (Life of Constantine, book III). This tells us that those who refused to follow the Easter Sunday observance were effectively separated from the church in Rome.

Second, there was no Catholic church “that sprouted in Rome”, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Catholic Church “sprouted” in Jerusalem, in Israel.

I disagree.

Third, Polycarp, was such a good Catholic, that he was infant baptized, which you’d know already if you’d actually read his defense before the proconsul who tried him and offered him release because of his old age if he’d deny Jesus. He was 86 years old at the time. What was his response? (5) Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, “Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;” Polycarp declared, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”

That doesn’t say he was infant-baptized. Infant baptism was not practiced until very much later, in the middle of the third century.

So then you are telling us that you believe in the material perspicacity of scripture then? You realize that means that you are asserting that the Bible need no explanation and can be interpreted literally just as anyone reading it in English finds it, right?

Don’t digress.

You said: “However, creationism has a problem in that it makes religion speak outside the bounds of its competence…” And I remarked: “The Bible better be accurate in everything it says including science.”

The subject matter was about COMPETENCY of the Word of God to speak about science. You said it is outside the bounds of its competence. I asserted it is not and promptly gave you my reasons. Now, why bring up the issue of interpretation with me? That is not mine to address but yours. You brought it upon yourself for not believing in the competency of the Bible. Every time you come across a Scripture that talks about science you would have to find an interpretation of what it is supposed to mean. You would have to go that one step further because of your unbelief. I do not have to. So, in this case, the matter on Bible interpretation does not concern me.

Faithful Catholics have no problem with the Bible, we simply disagree with your (and whoever fed you those teachings) interpretations of it.

I am not even interpreting it. You are. I understand the Genesis account in its plain and obvious sense. You do not because you do not trust in the Bible’s competence on matters of science so you make an interpretation of what it is supposed to mean.

The issue is never about God knowing science…it is about whether the Bible is in any way meant to be a science book. It is not. It is a collection of inspired writings about faith and religion. Nowhere within its pages does it claim to be a science book, a math book, an language book, or anything else but a religion book.

The issue is indeed about whether or not God knows anything about science, for the Bible is His Word. Yes, the Bible is not meant to be a science book and it does not claim to be one. However, when it touches on that subject, it has to be competent and accurate because it claims that ALL its writings are inspired: “ALL Scripture is inspired by God…” The Bible also does not claim to be a history book, but when it relates of events in the past (for which there are many in the Bible), it must also be accurate.

Your assertion is that “creationism has a problem in that it makes religion speak outside the bounds of its competence.” You have a problem with creationism because you believe science is outside of the Bible’s competence. So now you would have to look for another meaning to the plain teaching of creationism in Genesis.

So, you are saying that the Bible is a religion book? But why is Catholicism not a religion of “the book” – the Bible – when the Bible is a religion book?

 

[Mailman]

Trying to force “creationism” (which is not science but an idealistic and philosophical way of looking at the world) from the scriptures is just as bad (and is the same error) as the proponents of “evolutionism” and “Darwinism” make.

Let me ask you this and please be honest with your answer like any good Catholic should. Supposing we can get 100 people who have not heard of the Bible and its many differing interpretations; and then we let those 100 people read the creation story in Genesis. How many of them do you think would say that Genesis teaches “creationism” rather than something else?

Am I trying to “force” creationism from the Scriptures? That is its obvious meaning. No honest person can deny that. The only reason why people say it does not mean what it says is because to them it would contradict scientific findings. That is why they “force” the scientific view into the plain teaching in Scripture.

You’re saying both creationism and evolution are erroneous. What then do you believe in? Is it “theistic evolution”?

So you’re going to tell us that the oldest book in the Old Testament, Job, is definitely the retelling of an actual event and cannot possibly be a parable? Same for Jonah? If you say so, but since neither of us was there…

Yes, I do. Both are a retelling of an actual event and I’m 100% sure of that. Here’s a question for you from “grandfather” [a Catholic] in response to someone doubting the story of Jonah: He asks: “What is more difficult to believe that a person was swallowed by a giant beast and vomited up alive, or a person was murdered and buried for three days and returned to life?” [This is from the thread “bible inerrancy?” in forum Sacred Scripture.]

“The true church of God…”? And this is not the Catholic Church in your opinion? Then let me ask you just precisely which one of the literally thousands of n-C faith communities that is, because I know they do not all agree with each other, (or the Bible)?

No, it definitely is not the Catholic Church. But there is one, among the thousands of differing churches that claim to be Christian, which is God’s true church on earth. Which one? It is the Church that follows ALL the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Mailman]

Since you’re sure that the return of Christ is imminent, can you give us an approximate date? A year or maybe a decade will be sufficient.

CHRIST WILL RETURN NEXT YEAR ON EASTER SUNDAY! Do you believe that? Of course you know I’m only kidding. You know as well as I do that Christ said no one knows when He will return: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man… but the Father only.” However, Christ did not leave us in ignorance of when His return will be near. He gave us the signs to watch. I’m sure you’ve read about all that in your Bible.

 

[Mailman]

Where did you get the idea that the Catholic Church claims that the DRB is the most accurate English translation.

We all know that the Latin Vulgate was declared in the Council of Trent in 1546 to be the only authentic and official Catholic Bible. And that still holds true today. Now, the DRB is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, and translated by Catholic priests.

In “A Catechism of the Bible” by Rev. John O’Brein, M.A., NY 1924, Revised and enlarged by Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X., St. Mary’s, Kansas 1997 Copyright 1997, 2003, on Lesson 11: The Douay Bible:

1. Is there a Catholic translation of the Bible in English?
   Ans. Yes, it is the translation known as the Douay-Rheims Version. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Now, there is no mention of other ENGLISH translations for Catholics that could compare with the DRB. Therefore, this Catechism teaches that the DRB is the most accurate English translation. And why should it not be? It was translated by Catholic priests straight from the Latin Vulgate.

As for God not inspiring the translation, do you mean that God withdrew the guidanc of the Holy Spirit when it came for the original texts to be translated?

Isn’t that a rather stupid assertion when you consider that someone could so mistranslate the original text and thus result in erroneous gospel.

This is why there are bad and good translations of the Bible. We have to decide which one truly had the guidance of the Spirit as well.

God did not inspire the translators, only the original writers. If God had inspired the translators, there would have exist one English translation without any error. But there is none. And why would it be necessary for God to inspire the translators? The English translations have only minor errors which do not affect the overall message of the Bible [But of course that applies only to word-for-word translations like the DRB and KJV, not those translated “meaning-for-meaning” where the translator can pass on his erroneous understanding to his translation]. Also, any questionable words can be easily verified from the Hebrew or Greek words used in the originals.

By the way, it’s not prudent to say it’s stupid not to inspire the translators. If you are wrong about your view, then you are calling God stupid.

 

[Mailman]

You’re dead wrong here again.

The current main translation of the Bible for Catholics is this one.

I was talking about the most accurate ENGLISH translation. I think you are referring to the Latin Vulgate? The DRB is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

Don’t try to lay all that stuff on us about what we supposedly believe about the Bible. It’s not about what we believe about the Bible, this thread is a discussion of the fundamental error of Sola Scriptura, which, no matter how hard you try you cannot support from the Word of God because it’s not there.

Sola Scriptura is, in fact, an unscriptural new wind of doctrine of men that has no ground in either the Bible or the early church. It did not exist until some 500 years ago.

Did I ever say I believe in Sola Scriptura? I said I believe that the Bible is the final authority, not the ONLY authority. Sola Scriptura, as I understand it from Catholics, is “Scripture only” leaving the Church with no authority. I do not believe on that doctrine.

What I believe is that the Church, although having the authority, should not go against the teachings of the Bible. In other words, the Church is not above the Bible. It cannot, for example, dispense with its laws or with any of its teachings. The Bible stands to be the final authority in faith and life.

 

[Mailman]

I’m glad you brought that up, because my friend John Martignoni responds to that better than I would when he says:
Quote
A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?

Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.
The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.
End Quote

Your friend is good at playing with words. The devil has the same ability and his purpose is to confuse the issue. But it does not change the fact that when you read the creation story in Genesis, it speaks about direct creation. Understanding it differently is engaging in private interpretation.

Now, about the words “literal” and “literalist”, your friend maintains that Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense and that fundamentalists use a “literalist” approach. But then, that priest John Redford * explains the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture this way:

“Behind the fundamentalist view of Scripture, therefore, is what we might call a univocal [another play of words] approach to the interpretation of the Bible. The fundamentalist cannot accept the possibility that some passages of Scripture are historical, and others not; and that it is not always easy to tell the difference.” I think so far you have no objection to his statements. But then Redford continues, “For example, did the writer of Genesis intend us to accept the six days of creation LITERALLY? Or could it be that he was only writing symbolically, and that the scientific view that the world took millions of years to create is not incompatible with a Christian [he means Catholic, of course] view of creation?”

Did you catch it? Redford doesn’t agree with your friend, Martignoni. He says [indirectly] that fundamentalists are the ones using a “literal” approach to the interpretation of Scripture, not Catholics.*

 

[po18guy]

I was talking about the most accurate ENGLISH translation. I think you are referring to the Latin Vulgate? The DRB is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate.

Did I ever say I believe in Sola Scriptura? I said I believe that the Bible is the final authority, not the ONLY authority. Sola Scriptura, as I understand it from Catholics, is “Scripture only” leaving the Church with no authority. I do not believe on that doctrine.

What I believe is that the Church, although having the authority, should not go against the teachings of the Bible. In other words, the Church is not above the Bible. It cannot, for example, dispense with its laws or with any of its teachings. The Bible stands to be the final authority in faith and life.

Doesn’t your take on authority place a man-made book (no matter how inspired) above each and every soul, which is Christ’s Church? We are His Church, His Body. He is the Head and we are the body. How does this square with a book that is greater than a human soul?

 

[jeff417]

I believe this poll is essentially a trick question. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority concerning faith, no question. In fact, the Church convened the Second Vatican Council in part to get back to scriptural focus in the mass and less on devotions. Moral theology sets it’s cornerstone in scripture as well. However, without the teaching authority of the Church, the innumerable personal interpretations of Scripture would render them somewhat useless. Sola Scriptura is untenable simply because a person can interpret nearly anything they want from scriptures. Just a quick browsing on this forum shows how much disagreement can arise from issues with a Scriptural focus.
In short, Sacred Scripture is, as Christians, our ultimate authority on faith and morals BUT we need the teaching authority of our Divinely instituted Catholic Church to tell us what it all means.

 

[benedictus2]

Nope, scripture is not the final authority. The magisterium is.

[/quote]

I quite agree. Since the Church was the one who decided on the canon of the Bible, doesn’t it stand to reason that the Church is the final authority?

 

[benedictus2]

CHRIST WILL RETURN NEXT YEAR ON EASTER SUNDAY! Do you believe that? Of course you know I’m only kidding. You know as well as I do that Christ said no one knows when He will return: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man… but the Father only.” However, Christ did not leave us in ignorance of when His return will be near. He gave us the signs to watch. I’m sure you’ve read about all that in your Bible.

Then how come you’re so sure it is imminent? Paul thought it was gonig to happen in his lifetime too and 2000 years later…

 

[benedictus2]

We all know that the Latin Vulgate was declared in the Council of Trent in 1546 to be the only authentic and official Catholic Bible. And that still holds true today. Now, the DRB is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, and translated by Catholic priests.

I think someone else answered this one for you with a link so I’ll pass as I don’t really know if the Church has said anything about an official Catholic translation. I was looking at the NRSV Catholic Edition and this is the one that the Catholic college here uses.

Also you quote from a 1924 Catechism and I am not sure if, as regards the version of the Bible, that still holds true today.

Here’s a quote from the link below:
"the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century. "

God did not inspire the translators, only the original writers. If God had inspired the translators, there would have exist one English translation without any error. But there is none. And why would it be necessary for God to inspire the translators? The English translations have only minor errors which do not affect the overall message of the Bible

It is not so much inspire as to guide. In something this important, I doubt very much if God would withold the guidance of His Holy Spirit. If He sends the guidance of His Spirit on ordinary prayer meetings and minor decisions, why would he purposely withold this during the translation of His Word. I think the Biblical Scholars would have an issue with your regarding your assertion.

[But of course that applies only to word-for-word translations like the DRB and KJV, not those translated “meaning-for-meaning” where the translator can pass on his erroneous understanding to his translation].

My point exactly!

This is why we need to sort our which ones truly had the guidance of the Spirit.

Here is an excerpt on the absurdity that can result (taken from a Catholic Answers Guide
"At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones (like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture with items of modern ones.

Compare the NIV rendering of Matthew 9:16-17 with what is found in the CPV:

“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved” (NIV).

“Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that’s been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage” (CPV). "

By the way, it’s not prudent to say it’s stupid not to inspire the translators. If you are wrong about your view, then you are calling God stupid.

Far from it. I am saying that it is stupid (ridiculous is probably a better word) to say that God would purposely withold His guidance in its translation.

When you come to think that there were other Gospels out there when the canon was established and the Church determined that they were not inspired, there would also be other translations that would not be faithful to the original and would not have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

You’re saying that God takes His guidance so far and no further. Even an ordinary mortal would not do that.

 

[benedictus2]

Did I ever say I believe in Sola Scriptura? I said I believe that the Bible is the final authority,

How can you say that the final authority is the Bible when the Church was the one who had the final say on which Gospels existing at the time were to form part of the Canon. So the Church was the final authority. Nowhere in the Bible does it lay claim to this.

Now that the Canon has been established by the Church, of course the Church cannot teach anything contrary to it, because it was Her in the first place who determined that these are the books that are inspired. To do otherwise would be to teach against herself.

 

[Mailman]

Doesn’t your take on authority place a man-made book (no matter how inspired) above each and every soul, which is Christ’s Church? We are His Church, His Body. He is the Head and we are the body. How does this square with a book that is greater than a human soul?

The Bible, although written by men, is inspired of God. If it were just written by devout Christians without God’s inspiration, it would have no authority over us at all. The word translated “inspired by God” in the text, “All scripture is inspired by God…” (2 Tim. 3:16), is from the original Greek “theopneustos” – theo, meaning God; and pneuma, meaning breath – or literally, “God-breathed.”

The Scriptures therefore come from the breath of God and is not just any ordinary writings from men. The words used by the writers were the Word of God. “God, who at sundry times [segments of time], and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets…” (Heb. 1:1-2). And when Christ came, “… Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son…” That is why the Bible records these words [just a few of many] to show that Scripture comes from God Himself:

“And God spake all these words…” (Ex. 20:1).
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord…” (Ex. 24:4).
“… These are the words the Lord hath commanded…” (Ex. 35:1).
The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2).
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the lord hath spoken…” (Isa. 1:2).
“The word of the Lord came unto me…” (Jer. 1:4).

All Christians, including Catholics, acknowledge that the Bible is God’s written Word. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed that Scripture is the Word of God when He said: “… unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Being God’s Word, it must be the final authority. This is not talking about the book, but the words contained in the book which is the final authority. No Christian can deny the fact that whatever God says, is final and cannot be disputed by men. If we believe that the Bible is Word of God, then we have to admit that it is the final authority.

Jesus Himself taught that that the authority that will rule the conduct of our lives shall be God’s Word: “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” This instruction is from Christ Himself, having been sent by the Father to reveal His will. And the Father said, “… whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19).

By the way, do you believe that the Church can dispense with the laws of God written in His Word?

 

[guanophore]

All Christians, including Catholics, acknowledge that the Bible is God’s written Word. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed that Scripture is the Word of God when He said: “… unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

Yes.

Being God’s Word, it must be the final authority.

No. Authority is a role or office that cannot be occupied by a text. It requires elements that only persons have, such as discernment, intellect, and will. The text does not have these qualities,and therefore, it is not appropriate to try to attribute activity to it that cannot be performed.

This is not talking about the book, but the words contained in the book which is the final authority.

Herein lies the problem, does it not? Everyone who reads the words contained in the book does so according to their own perceptions. This is why we have so many different interpretations.

No Christian can deny the fact that whatever God says, is final and cannot be disputed by men.

Yes.

If we believe that the Bible is Word of God, then we have to admit that it is the final authority.

No. Jesus appointed persons to be in authority because the Holy Writings cannot fulfill this role. It is like saying that a man can conceive a child in the womb and give birth. You are trying to ascribe something to someone that is not possible.

Jesus Himself taught that that the authority that will rule the conduct of our lives shall be God’s Word: “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” This instruction is from Christ Himself, having been sent by the Father to reveal His will. And the Father said, “… whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19).

It is an error to think that all of God’s word is written in the scripture. The rule of conduct for a Christian is the Law of Christ, which is Love. People are able to follow this rule of conduct even if they cannot read the Bible. Christianity is not a “religion of the book”.

By the way, do you believe that the Church can dispense with the laws of God written in His Word?

This is an excellent question, and brings forward a perfect example of the nature of the problem. Who decides what part of scripture is “law” that is binding on Christians, and who decides what is written there for our instruction?

Who decides if a bishop can be an unmarried or childless man?

Who decides if women are allowed to speak in the church?

Who decides if a woman can have short hair, or if it is unlawful for her to go into church without a veil?

Who can dispense with the plucking out of eyes, and the cutting off of offensive hands?

The answer to these questions is not found in scripture, which is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority.

 

[Mailman]

I believe this poll is essentially a trick question. The Scriptures are the final and ultimate authority concerning faith, no question.

doesn’t it stand to reason that the Church is the final authority?

Are you guys in disagreement?

 

[guanophore]

Are you guys in disagreement?

 

[Mailman]

Who decides if a bishop can be an unmarried or childless man?

Who decides if women are allowed to speak in the church?

Who decides if a woman can have short hair, or if it is unlawful for her to go into church without a veil?

Who can dispense with the plucking out of eyes, and the cutting off of offensive hands?

The answer to these questions is not found in scripture, which is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority.

Does this “teaching authority” teach that it has the authority to dispense with or change any of God’s Ten Commandments law?

 

[lofktis14kr]

Jesus Himself taught that that the authority that will rule the conduct of our lives shall be God’s Word: “It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” This instruction is from Christ Himself, having been sent by the Father to reveal His will. And the Father said, “… whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19).

Your words remind me of John’s vision.
Rev 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.

God will cut all men down on that Day, by the “two-edged, sharper than any other”, standard of His Word.

We are to use that same Word when engaged in spiritual battle.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but…against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Therefore take up…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

This is precisely what the catholic church did in her glory days of conquest against the gnostics and such. But unfortunately, she allowed the church at Rome to become a sword unto herself and followed.