Sola Scriptura

[denwiles]

To me, it’s ironic to discuss a doctrine of sola scriptura, Bible alone or the Bible is the sole authority, when that doctrine is not found or supported in scriptures.

If the teaching is not found in scriptures, it comes from an “authority” outside of the Bible and is man-made in itself.

To believe in sola scriptura, is to invite each and every individual to read for themselves and weigh everything against what the Bible says, according to their own personal interpretation. In doing so it’s evident, by the many different denominations with different doctrines, that we have many individual interpretations of scriptures.

Jesus and the Apostles taught through an “oral tradition”. When they referred to scriptures, they referred to the Old Testament.

Christ gave authority to men, He did not give authority to scriptures.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

When Christ sent them out to teach all nations, the Bible had not yet been written, but they knew what He was telling them to do because they had been sent out before.

Mat 10:7 And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 10:27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.

What did Christ Himself do, once He had sent them out?

Mat 11:1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he passed from thence, to teach and to preach in their cities.

Why do scriptures tell us to hold to the traditions that had been taught, without going into detail as to what those traditions were? I believe it was because of oral tradition.

Scriptures provide numerous examples of oral tradition.

Christ told the people to observe and do whatever those who sit upon Moses’ seat said, yet He didn’t explain what the chair of Moses was and the it’s not written about anywhere in scriptures. They knew because of oral tradition.

The author of Acts wrote the words of Christ, “I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.” Yet the author was not an eyewitness to Christ. He learned of those words through oral tradition. Acts 20:35

Paul told us the names of the two magicians that worked for Pharoah, yet they are not named anywhere else in scriptures. He learned those names through oral tradition. 2 Timothy 3:8

Paul also told us about the rock that followed the Israelites through the desert, yet that rock is not written about anywhere else in scriptures. He could have only known this through oral tradition. 1 Corinthians 10:4

Only two of the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses to Christ, Matthew and John. How did Luke and Mark know what to write? They heard it preached or spoken to them. Only five of the Apostles actually wrote any scriptures. The majority of the New Testament was written by what had been told to the authors.

If one sat down and started to read everything written, that Christ had said, how long would it take? Five hours? Yet Christ preached and spoke for 3 years. Are we to believe He only taught a few hours worth hearing?

Joh 21:25 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.

Let’s look at the example of the Ethiopian eunuch and Philip, in Acts 8.

**Act 8:30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Act 8:31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Act 8:35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.**

The eunuch did not understand what he read. It was only after Philip preached Jesus to him that he understood, believed and was baptized.

Had Christ saw such an importance in the authority of scriptures alone, why didn’t He sit down and write, or order scribed, scriptures? Why is it the Holy Spirit did not inspire those men to write the scriptures until 30 and more years later?

Where does the sole authority tell us a list of the books that are to be included in the Bible? If it does not, it means we had to depend on an authority outside of the Bible. That in itself, defeats the meaning of sola scriptura, in my opinion.

Once those letters and epistles, that make up the New Testament, had been written, how long was it before they were brought together to make up the New Testament, as we know it today? History tells us, the first attempt to define the canon of the New Testament, which produced a list similar to today’s, was the Council of Laodicea, in 360AD.

The sole authority, as some see it, did not provide us with the Church, the Church defined the canon of those books and epistles to be included in the Bible. Christ gave authority to men of the Church and they, through God’s inspiration, gave us scriptures. There is more than a single, or sole, authority.

Brother I have some serious news for you

1. I am Catholic
2. I don’t want anyone to leave the Catholic Church
3. I am a Bible Teacher
4. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE
5. There are millions of Catholics that think just like me
6. The Sacraments, Priest, Tradition are all good, but it’s Jesus that saves you
7. All I do is out of Love; I have dedicated my entire life 16 hours a day to the Lord
8. Our God is a Consuming fire and His Children are passionate about what they do
9. Brother I do Love you, but you are confused, Jesus is the WORD. So of corse the Scriptures are our main authority. Please research all I Have said

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Brother I have some serious news for you

1. I am Catholic
2. I don’t want anyone to leave the Catholic Church
3. I am a Bible Teacher
4. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE
5. There are millions of Catholics that think just like me
6. The Sacraments, Priest, Tradition are all good, but it’s Jesus that saves you
7. All I do is out of Love; I have dedicated my entire life 16 hours a day to the Lord
8. Our God is a Consuming fire and His Children are passionate about what they do
9. Brother I do Love you, but you are confused, Jesus is the WORD. So of corse the Scriptures are our main authority. Please research all I Have said

Jesus is the head and center of the Catholic Church and our means to salvation.

The argument of faith vs. faith plus works is semantics, in my opinion. When we read scriptures, pray, attend Church, are these not works? Works is our response to God’s love. No one can work their way into heaven, just as one cannot simply believe in Christ and live anyway they want because they believe.

I’m afraid you’re going to have provide a source that the Pope stated Martin Luther was right.

The sacraments are a gift from Jesus, just as is His Church. I don’t know why a Catholic would accuse other Catholics of putting anything before Christ being our only mediator? Just as I can’t understand a Catholic advocating sola scriptura which has caused great divisions in Christ’s Church?

 

[po18guy]

1. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE

Brother, might I clarify just a little? The Pope conceded nothing to Luther. He merely reiterated that, in this instance, Luther did not differ with Catholic teaching. We are saved by grace through faith. This was always the official teaching.

1. The Sacraments, Priest, Tradition are all good, but it’s Jesus that saves you

Since the Blessed Sacrament IS Jesus, it is inseparable from Him. All of the other Sacraments were instituted by Christ.

1. Brother I do Love you, but you are confused, Jesus is the WORD. So of corse the Scriptures are our main authority. Please research all I Have said

Jesus founded His church upon Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. They are inseparable from one another if the gates of hell are not to prevail.

Any structure with three legs will always sit solidly upon the earth. Less than three legs will fall, and more than three will wobble (ask any carpenter…). Once you remove one or two pillars, the Church will then fall in any and every direction. Luther did this - with disastrous results. All three pillars came from God, and in a broad sense, reflect the Trinity. We see this with all faith traditions which have only a single, or at most two of the pillars. Their theology is all over the map.

If scripture was the only pillar, Jesus would have sent the Apostles forth with only scrolls.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Brother I have some serious news for you

1. I am Catholic
2. I don’t want anyone to leave the Catholic Church
3. I am a Bible Teacher
4. Pope John Paul II in 1994 signed an agreement with The Lutheran Church saying Martin Luther was right, Salvation is by Faith alone and not of works, Look it up online. We are to listen to the POPE
5. There are millions of Catholics that think just like me
6. The Sacraments, Priest, Tradition are all good, but it’s Jesus that saves you
7. All I do is out of Love; I have dedicated my entire life 16 hours a day to the Lord
8. Our God is a Consuming fire and His Children are passionate about what they do
9. Brother I do Love you, but you are confused, Jesus is the WORD. So of corse the Scriptures are our main authority. Please research all I Have said

This is an apologetics forums. You are supposed to provide sources to support your view, not tell someone to research everything you said.

I’m waiting for your source that states the Pope agreed that Martin Luther was right.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, you would only push this requirement on a Protestant. If an ECF makes a vague, totally unclear statement that could possibly support a Catholic doctrine, it’s held up like Gospel. If a Protestant appeals to an ECF statement that is clear as day, oh!, suddenly, we have to look for concensus and some equally vague Sacred Tradition.

I understand your complaint, and I appreciate the point you are making. Here is hte difference; for us, Sacred Tradition is not “vague”. Therefore, we can see the threads of the Apostolic teaching weaving thru the fathers like gold. Yes, some of the Fathers wrote things that did not reflect the purity of Apostolic Tradition. It is still of value to us so that we understand the thinking of the time. However, we trust that Jesus was able to keep His word to lead the Church into all truth.

Sacred Tradition is not the result of “consensus” but of divine revelation.

When Protestants appeal to the fathers, they often do so by disregarding parts of their writings that demonstrate their Catholic beliefs.

Of course all of the Fathers have great reverence for scripture. They write about this consistently. It is one of the Apostolic threads of gold! however, they were not SS.

Your statement, and others like it, is too vague to be meaningful, just like infallability itself. If we can’t trust a Bishop of the 2nd Century (Irenaeus), who was only one person removed from the Apostles, then I’m not sure who we can trust.

Sacred Tradition and infallibility are not vague. Irenaeus did not make any infallible proclamations., but he did teach infallibly, to the extent that he accurately represented what the Apostles taught. When one learns the content of this teaching, the product of divine revelation, one no longer suffers from “vagueness”.

 

[denwiles]

Jesus is the head and center of the Catholic Church and our means to salvation.

The argument of faith vs. faith plus works is semantics, in my opinion. When we read scriptures, pray, attend Church, are these not works? Works is our response to God’s love. No one can work their way into heaven, just as one cannot simply believe in Christ and live anyway they want because they believe.

I’m afraid you’re going to have provide a source that the Pope stated Martin Luther was right.

The sacraments are a gift from Jesus, just as is His Church. I don’t know why a Catholic would accuse other Catholics of putting anything before Christ being our only mediator? Just as I can’t understand a Catholic advocating sola scriptura which has caused great divisions in Christ’s Church?

Brother I totally agree with you. The reason I am so Passionate is because most sitting in the Church don’t have that same understanding. You proved my Point Jesus is the Head of the Church (people). After Mass all you have is an empty building. People say lets go to church, we are the Church. Any way you truly know that all ready, so my point is not really to you. Any way Don’t be mad at me. God Bless

 

[denwiles]

This is an apologetics forums. You are supposed to provide sources to support your view, not tell someone to research everything you said.

I’m waiting for your source that states the Pope agreed that Martin Luther was right.

www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/jun2000/feature2.asp There you go.

 

[denwiles]

www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/jun2000/feature2.asp There you go.

This is even the Catholic side so you don’t think I giving you a Protestant link

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is even the Catholic side so you don’t think I giving you a Protestant link

I’ve responded to this on another thread. It seems you’re bringing up the same arguments on multiple threads and it’s confusing.

As I said, faith vs faith plus works is semantics. Works is our response to God’s love.

This is what I found, and it did not say Martin Luther was right.

The declaration acknowledges that good works are a genuine response to God’s grace—not the cause of it.

 

[guanophore]

OK, but for the record, I don’t hold to SS as most Protestants would understand it. I readily admit my biases and preconceived notions, and I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that Scripture just magically interprets itself.

One of the reasons I love reading your posts. You are one of the most intellectually honest persons here!

Ok, how does this help your position exactly? Of course Tradition and Scripture were appealed to in his day. The point was, their testimony was THE SAME. This cannot be said of the current state of Catholic doctrine.

There were just as many people in that day as there are now, saying that they are “not the same”. It would be more accurate to say that there was no contradiction between them, as they really were meant to complement one another. The passages posted also make it clear that it was Church teaching that provided the pillar and bulwark of the truth when the scriptures were misinterpreted by dissident groups.

Exactly. The only problem for you is “the rule” does not change and get constantly added to as the Catholic church has done.

No,the Church does not “add” to the rule. What is added is description, definition, and our understanding. One of the elements of Sacred Tradition is that it was whole and entire and the death of the last apostle. Nothing can be added.

Your (mis)interpretation of Irenaeus’ meaning would make him contradict himself when he says that revelation is complete, and verified in writing. Tradition served to verify the Scriptures, and vice versa. Tradition is not something that grows independently of Scripture.

You are correct. However, our understanding does grow. There were some things that the Apostles did not understand immediately, but that they did later. It did not mean that what Jesus taught them was incomplete, but that their understanding was. The same is true today. For instance, they did not have the “morning after pill”, so there was no official Church teaching in regard to it. However, understanding what they taught about the sanctity of life, we can apply that teaching today.

Interestingly, the Catholic church does not agree with this stance that was unanymously held by the Fathers.

I would really like for you to explain why you think this, but I think it is outside the scope of this thread.

More appeal to the importance of the scriptures. Again, not sure how this helps the Catholic position.

The Catholic position is that the scriptures are important.

100% implies that the revelation was complete at the time of the Apostles, just like Jesus said it would be (“you will be led into ALL truth”). This is not complicated. Either Jesus told the truth, and all truth was revealed to the Apostles, or Jesus lied, in which case, our faith is pretty meaningless. There is quite obviously no real dilemma here. Jesus did not lie, and the Catholic church has not continued to reveal truth to us down through the ages.

It is our understanding of the truth that changes, not the Truth itself. The once for all deposit of faith has been understood and applied differently

I’m sure they are equally taken out of context and misapplied.

If you are so sure about this, then read them yourself! I am sure that you are open minded enough to approach them without bias, and to let the Spirit show you whatever you need to see.

For us, the “context” is the Catholic Church, by whose members they were written, and bywhom they were preserved. I urge you to just try on the Catholic mindset, for experimental purposes.

 

[guanophore]

 Let's look at the larger statement made by Cyril of which the above has been selectively edited.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Cyril indeed says to keep what the Church teaches. By what the Church teaches he means the creed. And what is the purpose of the creed? It is to summarize Scripture since not all can read or have the time to read. They should expect each part of the articles of faith to be confirmed by Scripture. The articles of faith cannot be changed and embrace all the knowledge of godliness in both the Old and New Testaments. Note he says that the whole doctrine has been taught, it is a complete teaching of the faith and all the knowledge is encompassed by it.

He doesn’t seem to leave any room for additions or development of doctrine.

On the contrary, what he is writing is in itself a “development of doctrine”. This is reframing the Once for All deposit of faith so that it can be applied to current situations. All of the fathers did this, just as the Apostles did. For example, the Council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts is an example of the development of doctrine. They applied their understanding of the teaching of Jesus to the present need of the Church, and gave instructions to the faithful accordingly. This has been done by the Magesterium from that time until this.

I do agree, though, about the additions.

 

[guanophore]

I have a question pertaining to this discussion. I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow any private interpretation of scripture. If this is so, how do I know that Catholic interpretation is correct? Why not depend on the Holy Spirit, who is our guide?

Peace,   Golfjack

I apologize if this was answered, as I am a couple days behind on the postings. I want to say that the Catholic Church encourages us to read, study, understand and apply scripture in a personal way to our lives. We are to do these activities in unity with the Teaching of the Apostles, which is contained in the Magesterial Authority of the Church. As long as our personal interpretations do not conflict with the Sacred Tradition, we are in good shape.

 

[guanophore]

The tone seems a bit harsh at times.

Yeah, we do get a little heated at times.

Be encouraged to challenge us to charity as needed.

I have a few questions.  I'm not sure of the context of the quotes from the ECFs, that our protestant brothers point out.  In one quote I think Irenaeus was saying that we can't know what God was doing before he created the earth, because scripture doesn't say.  Perhaps this was in response to Gnosticism - I don't know.

Yes, the major heresy in his day was Gnosticism. When one reads the propositions of Gnosticism, many of them detailed in Irenaeus’ tract Against Heresies it is clear that it is based on a great deal of speculation and myth about creation, and what happened prior to the forming of earth.

I think the church would take the same position now if someone started to say what God was doing before scripture explains this to us.

But if the scripture itself says that church teaching is important and indeed that the church will have binding and loosing authority then would the ECFs disagree? Did any church Fathers maintain that the church was not Guided by the holy spirit or that it was not apostolic. It seems to me these quotes are not really dealing with the issue of church authority versus scripture authority - as Protestants like to frame the issue.

You are correct, but one has to be mindful that Protestants have been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500 years, and most modern American Protestants don’t even realize that there exists a divine deposit of Truth in the Church. They have been taught otherwise always.

One must also bear in mind that the authorititative collection of “scripture” had not yet been defined formally. The formation of the NT did not occur until 382, so there were all kinds of writings being pandered as "scripture’ before that time. When the Council met to canonize, there were over 400 works that had to be considered, and most rejected, to determine the 27 book NT, and several of those were hotly disputed.

The early creeds seem talk more of the church than of scriptures. Do any early creeds say we must believe one thing or another about scripture? I think the only thing we must believe is that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures.

Since the NT was in a state of “flux” at the time, the understanding of the Church was that the bishops guarded the Divine Deposit of faith. No interpretation of scripture apart from their teaching was considered valid. If an interpretation was made otherwise, such as those against which Irenaeus wrote, it was considered heresy.

Perhaps also by implication. We must believe the church is holy and so when the church teaches that the scripture is XYZ we must listen.

Do Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church?]/quote]

Yes and no. The Reformers believed that the HS abandoned the Catholic Church, and infused the ones they created.

Modern American Fundamentalists, to a large extent, have been taught that the HS is a cult, or a misguided “works based salvation” Church. Some have been taught that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon. The most salient reading on this is Jack Chick, who has the finest collection of anti-Catholic rhetoric that can be found anywhere. Boettner is another source of this line of thinking.

Most Protestants believe that the HS imbues those who believe, and that this is what defines “church”. Most also have a deficient understanding of what is “church” that does not include those things that the Apostles and early fathers taught, such as unity with the bishops, and the communion of saints.
joemccarron;5134940:

Is the idea that the Church has abandoned the Holy Spirit? Is there really a difference - either way the belief is that the Holy Spirit is no longer there. If that is true would it not be the case that Satan has prevailed against the church? Is this not contrary to scripture?

This might be a better rendition of what Protestants believe. Scripture testifies that God “gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him”. So, the thinking is, that the Catholic Church disobeyed the gospel, and therefore, abandoned the HS, who then searched and found those who were willing to obey (Reformers) and the true Church continued despite the Catholic disobedience.

To my way of thinking, no, there is no difference. Whether the HS left the Catholic Church, or the CC left the Spirit, the result would be the same. The reason this is not seen as unscriptural is that they believe the true church now exists outside of Catholicism.

I think in order to really support the claims of Protestants we should see some quotes from fathers saying abandon the teachings of the church and only follow scripture.

It was not necessary at the time, because “the great apostacy” (falling away from the faith) had not yet occurred.

To say the traditions of the church and scripture were identical is hard to defend. They are consistent but they are not identical - otherwise the ECFs would find themselves simply making an identical copy of scripture every time they put pen to paper and discussing the them. They didn’t.

Liturgy cannot be confined to the scriptures, and the lifestyle taught by the Apostles, in the NT called The Way also cannot be confined to scripture. Scripture us profitable for teaching The Way, but there is no indication that all we need to know is contained therin.

What happened was that European Christians, disgusted with the behavior of Catholic Clerics, decided that the Teaching of the Church was corrupt because they were not following it. They decided to try to replace the authority appointed by Christ with the bible, which was never intended to be a “final authority”.

I do think Sycarl (and perhaps some other protestants in this thread) asks a good question: why are Catholics today required to believe so much more than the early church fathers. I wonder if any of the ECFs would survive charges of heresy if they said what they said then, today. I do often with the church would give all the binding a rest and start doing some more loosing. But that is just me.

Yes, very valid questions. It is not so much that we are required to believe “more” but that we are required to apply the Teachings of the Apostles to our present day and age. The Apostles could not conceive of such things as the Atom Bomb and the morning after pill. There needs to be a present day application of the Teachings that were once for all delivered to the Church. This is the task of the Magesterium.

 

[guanophore]

PS,   When you have two people claiming Holy Spirit guidance on scripture with different interpretations, first we always go to the Word of God to see who is correct.

I agree, but I fear that you believe the Word of God is confined to the Scriptures. Do you realize that the Scripture directs us to do the opposite when we have a dispute? Instead of using our own personal understanding, we are to take the problem to those that God has empowered to discern.

 You see, there can different opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts.  Sometimes we as humans just miss the voice of the Holy Spirit.  There is a big problem with Christians that are mind led. The Holy Spirit speaks to our spirits and not to our minds. The devil has access to our minds and not to our recreated spirits.

You are right, but the facts according to whom?

You are also right that humans do miss the voice of the Spirit. The Spirit leads through the mind, emotions, body and spirit within us. You are right, the devil does have access to these lower human faculties. This is why it was essential for Christ to put into place an infallible interpreter of His Word.

As far as denominations go, I don’t believe God is pleased with that and was never met to be. I believe God wants a Word and Holy Ghost Church just like the church in the Book of Acts.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Just like the word Trinity, Sola-Scripture is not in the Bible. I think you Catholic’s have made that word to confuse people.

You mean Trinity?

You have some interesting things to learn about the history of your faith.

The Church is a pillar of truth if it’s based on God’s Word. ( Bible based church). Of course, sometimes we need correction in a church. The Bible says study and show thyself approved.

You might consider studying the history of the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

I'm fairly new here, not an expert on anything,

Fortunately, being an expert is not a requirement for participation.

Welcome to CAF, and welcome to the thread.

I’ve read a good description of how people refer to the way the Catholic Church looks at certain issues as not this OR that, but BOTH this AND that. (for you IT types out there, think of Boolean algebra!) Maybe you more knowledgeable Catholics could give more examples of this.

Perhaps you could help us with this?

 Because you've got all kinds of different churches SINCERELY going to the Word of God to see who is correct, and about as many answers from each one stating that they are the church that is correct. I have NEVER seen an answer that resolves this problem satisfactorily.

I was listening to Fr. Corapi yesterday, and he was talking about the word “diabolical”. He was saying it is Gk. for “dividing asunder”. this is what I see as the fruit of the Reformation. The Church was divided, and still continues to divide. The fruits are separation and division.

It is based upon, as you have pointed out, everyone understanding scripture according to what is right in his own eyes.

 

[juliamajor]

Brother I totally agree with you. The reason I am so Passionate is because most sitting in the Church don’t have that same understanding. You proved my Point Jesus is the Head of the Church (people). After Mass all you have is an empty building. People say lets go to church, we are the Church. Any way you truly know that all ready, so my point is not really to you. Any way Don’t be mad at me. God Bless

Actually if the Eucharist is present then the church is not empty.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just like the word Trinity, Sola-Scripture is not in the Bible. I think you Catholic’s have made that word to confuse people. Peace, Golfjack

Ok, I’ve been trying to make a point, that somehow is overlooked by some and misunderstood by others.

You accuse Catholic’s of having made a word up to “confuse” people, because the term “sola scriptura” is not in the Bible, just as the term “Trinity” is not in the Bible. Why is there a double standard here? That being, you spoke of the “rapture”, but that term is not in the Bible?

We both agree that the Trinity is supported by scriptures, even though it doesn’t say, “Trinity”. Catholics believe purgatory is supported by scriptures, even though it doesn’t specifically say “purgatory”, because we find scriptures to support the teaching. Sola scriptura is not specifically in the Bible and we cannot find scriptures to support that teaching. We’ve asked for those that believe in Sola scriptura to provide scriptures, but none are produced. Now you’ve brought up “rapture”, which is another example of a term not found in the Bible. I converted in 1985 and understand the basic Protestant belief of the rapture, even though I don’t agree with it, because I believe it’s not Biblical.

Protestants accuse Catholics of adding traditions, doctrines, or teachings, to scriptures, because they do not agree with the interpretation. Yet, when challenged on some Protestant traditions, doctrines, or teachings, Protestants offer no scriptures for us to try and understand where that teaching comes from. One cannot accuse another of “adding” when scriptures are provided to show that, even if you do not agree with the interpretation, the “addition” is really an interpretation of scriptures.

This is an apologetics forum. When scriptures are provided to show where a teaching comes from, it’s acceptable to provide scriptures that refute the teaching, since scriptures have to be read within scriptures. That’s not what I see happening. I see scriptures being discussed and refuted with a change of topics, questions in response to questions, or accusations that it’s wrong with no scriptural support. This doesn’t seem to be an honest approach to Bible study in my opinion. It appears to be more of a double standard one is held too.

There is nothing you can bring up, that Catholics would not bring up a scriptural support for, in my opinion. That’s all that’s being asked of our Protestant brothers and sisters here. Please provide the scriptures you believe support sola scriptura, or say you don’t know where it’s at in scriptures, or tell us where that teaching really comes from. Your problem is, if the teaching does not come from scriptures, it comes from outside the sole authority and then is considered a man-made tradition.

 

[golfjack]

PS, I don’t know if this helps, but I will give you 7 reasons for believing in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

1. The Bible declares itself to be the Word of GHod ( 2 Tim. 3:16).
2. Christ taught the Inerrancy of the Bible ( John 10:35).
3. The Prophets of the OT received the Scriptures as Inerrant ( 2 Chronicles 36:20).
4. Christ and the Apostles authenticated the NT as inerrant ( 2 Peter 1:21).
5. Christ and the Apostles accepted Genesis as a factual account ( Matt. 19:4).
6. Christ and the Apostles accepted the Books most attacked by critics ( Matt. 12:40, 41).
7. Fufilled Prophesy shows the inerrancy of the Bible ( Psalm 119:89).
   
   Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS, I don’t know if this helps, but I will give you 7 reasons for believing in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

1. The Bible declares itself to be the Word of GHod ( 2 Tim. 3:16).
2. Christ taught the Inerrancy of the Bible ( John 10:35).
3. The Prophets of the OT received the Scriptures as Inerrant ( 2 Chronicles 36:20).
4. Christ and the Apostles authenticated the NT as inerrant ( 2 Peter 1:21).
5. Christ and the Apostles accepted Genesis as a factual account ( Matt. 19:4).
6. Christ and the Apostles accepted the Books most attacked by critics ( Matt. 12:40, 41).
7. Fufilled Prophesy shows the inerrancy of the Bible ( Psalm 119:89).
   
   Peace, Golfjack

Thanks for responding.

I am only going to address number one on your list, as it appears you’re including two topics in your response. I, and I believe all Catholics, believe the Bible to be the inerrant, God breathed or inspired, Word of God. What we discussing is whether the Bible is the “sole authority” or not.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

Please note that verse states, “…is profitable”. Some translations use the term “useful”. The Greek word used is “ōphelimos”.

G5624
ὠφέλιμος
ōphelimos
o-fel’-ee-mos
From a form of G3786; helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able).

Profitable, or useful, does not fill the capacity of “sufficient”, or all that is needed. If it were to be considered sufficient, how did the faith and Church grow in the early centuries without the “sole authority”?

Now as I’ve stated above, Catholics agree with Protestants in that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Do you know of any scriptures that state “man’s” interpretation of scriptures is inerrant?

Jesus pointed out errors in interpretations or gave examples where interpretations had to be explained.

**Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.

Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning him.

Luk 24:32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way and opened to us the scriptures?

Luk 24:45 Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.**

Now, another verse comes to mind. Why would God inspire it be written, "…hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle?

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Why would God inspire it be written that no prophesy of scriptures is made by private interpetation, or that some could “wrest” scriptures, even to their own destruction?

**2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.**

Doesn’t this indicate that many interpretations mean that some have misinterpreted scriptures, to the point of their own destruction?

Why would God inspire it be written, “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ?” (Romans 10:17)

If scriptures is the sole authority, why did Christ teach to listen and observe all things spoken by the men who sat in the seat of Moses?

If the scriptures are the sole authority, why did God inspire it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures?

**1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **

Why did God inspire it be written that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, instead of scriptures?

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,

Where else can learn of all those things Christ did, but could not be written about?

Joh 21:25 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.

One final point, the founding fathers of this country wrote the constitution and established a legislative body to interpret that document for us. They did not send it to all people and tell them to interpret it for themselves. That would have caused chaos. Why would God have done less than men?

Since we agree that the Bible is inerrant, please provide more scriptures supporting sola scriptura, or that all people’s interpretation is inerrant…

 

[golfjack]

PS, Here is something I wrote in Bible school awhile back:

The written Word of God saves us from the babel of human opinions. And truly Jesus did many other signs, but these are written that you may believe that Jesis is the Christ ( John 20:30, 31). Can you imagine the chaotic result if God’s Word had been handed down merely by word of mouth? Of course He could have devised some other way to preserve the integrity of His Word. But He simply chose to inspire certain men who then committed His Word to writing ( 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

Since we have God’s own verbally inspired record, we don’t need to be confused by what others say and write. We may listen to people, sometimes to our great benefit, but we never need to be confused. Any time we are unsure of God’s revealed Word on a subject, it is best that we postpone judgment until we have searched the Scriptures to find out whether these things were so ( Acts 17:11). This is our daily responsibility and priviledge as Christians

We must let the Word of God shape our opinions. Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You ( Ps. 119:11). The Christians great ambition should be to think God’s thoughts after Him. As Paul states, we should aim at having the mind of Christ ( 1 Cor. 2:16). Our minds must be renewed by the Word of God ( Rom. 12:2). The more you consistently study the Bible, the more you will share God’s viewpoint on all matters. Of course you will never be infallible in this world, but your judgment will grow increasingly sharper, clearer, and more in line with God’s revealed truth. You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ( John 8:32).
Peace, Golfjack