Sola Scriptura

[AwGusTeen]

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you but I had to work today.

I cited fathers on matters on other than sola scriptura because you had suggested that if I accepted what Augustine and others said about scripture that I had to accept what he taught on other things. In the quotes I provided the fathers say things that are contrary to present Catholic teaching. Do you accept what they say on these points because you accept what they say on other points? If not you are trying to hold me to a different standard than yourself.

I also included the quotes because you indicate that sola scriptura leads to a great diversity of interpretations and doctrines. The quotes illustrate that there was also a great variety of opinions in the early church.

SyCarl:
I believe you are missing the point here. Sure, they had some disagreements, but that is how Church doctrines developed. Ultimately, however, they had to conform to the final interpretation and ultimate authority of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. That’s the seminal difference between their discussions and the total theological chaos extant in Protestantism today. Without a final authority, the gates are flung open for any wild interpretation(s), heresy, or what-have-you theology to take root. Don’t like my interpretation of scripture? Well, I’ll just start my own church based upon my on “unique” interpretations. After all, my interpretation is just as “fallible” as yours or anyone else’s for that matter.

 

[RWMorris]

What is YOUR opinion on Sola Scriptura? How did you arrive to conclude that it is a valid doctrine? What scriptural and historical evidence helped you?

Thanks…

• Michael

Dave Armstrong, an ex-evangelical Protestant, in his excellent book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, defends Tradition as being equal to Scripture since the Traditions passed down from Jesus to the Apostles to the Church is the Word of God, just as much so as Scripture. In fact the Bible, as defined by the Church, is actually a part of Tradition. The way Armstrong defines it is, “Scripture and Tradition are inextricably linked: twin fonts of the one spring of revelation.”

To everyone reading this post,

If you, as a Christian, believe in Sola Scriptura, you are only getting a small piece of what God has for you. You don’t have to be Catholic to read and study Tradition, and to see the Truth and Love of God found within. But it helps to have a guide. As a former Protestant, my favorite guide is Scott Hahn. But there are many former Protestants in the Catholic Church who are superb apologists for the faith. Pick one, and enjoy the most fabulous journey you’ll ever take.

 

[SyCarl]

What is YOUR opinion on Sola Scriptura? How did you arrive to conclude that it is a valid doctrine? What scriptural and historical evidence helped you?

Thanks…

• Michael

I will apologize at the outset for the length of this response. Even with this length it is only possible to give a cursory review.
Remember that scripture alone does not mean everything we can know or want to know is found in the Bible. It means that the Bible is the only infallible record that we have of divine revelation and that everything we need to know for salvation is clearly set out either explicitly or implicitly. I will repeat what the Calvinist Confession of Westminster says.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men… All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This does not deny a place for tradition but it is subordinate to Scripture and it is not necessary for salvation. Scripture itself would seem to indicate that there are things not recorded in it. For example John says:

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
(John 20:30-31 NASB)

John tells us that not all the signs Jesus did are in his book. I used the words “would seem to indicate there are things not recorded in Scripture” because John is referring only to what is in his book. We do not know how much of what he didn’t record is contained in the other Gospels. But even so, John does not leave it at saying that Jesus did other things. He adds the purpose of his book is so that we may believe and believing have life in Christ’s name. Basically he is asserting that his book alone contains what we need. If he can say this for his own book, how much is it true when we add the rest of the Bible.

Then we have the standard quote taken from 2 Timothy.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB)

Here Paul tells Timothy that the sacred writings are able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation. He also confirms that all Scripture is inspired by God. It is often pointed out that Paul would be speaking of the Old Testament. Even so, he says that they are able to lead us to salvation. How much more then when we have the entire Bible? However, Paul was writing as inspired by God. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles would not know their writings would be considered as Scripture. In fact 2 Peter clearly tells us that Paul’s letters are Scripture.

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

Throughout the both the Old and New Testament Scripture refers to what is written as containing God’s revelation. There are too many passages to list them all but I will give a few examples.

"Then the LORD your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.
(Deuteronomy 30:9-10 NASB)

"Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’
(1 Kings 2:3-4 NASB)

And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
(Luke 10:25-28 NASB)

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:44-47 NASB)

Nowhere do Jesus or the Apostle’s cite any oral tradition as the basis for what they are saying. It is always “as it is written” or “as the Scriptures said” or something similar. The whole tone of the New Testament is that it fulfills what was written in the Old.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus does refer to what the people of old had been told.

"You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent. "You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. "It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. "But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil. "You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:21-48 NASB)

However, in each case, what He says they heard was actually written in the Law and He quotes from it.

On only one occasion does Jesus actually refer to tradition and that is to condemn it.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”
(Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

The same incident is recorded in Mark.

(to be continued)

 

[SyCarl]

(continued)

In the epistles Paul refers to tradition several times. Paul basically treats tradition as synonymous with teaching. There is only one place where he speaks of oral tradition.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB)

This must be read in its proper context. We have only two short letters that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. It is clear from reading them that they do not include all the teaching contained in the rest of Scripture or even in Paul’s letters to others. There is nothing to show that what Paul taught orally to the Thessalonians he did not write to others. There is nothing that requires that this oral teaching be something other than what has been recorded elsewhere.

Paul’s references to tradition are mixed. He refers to it positively in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians but also negatively in Colossians.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
(Colossians 2:8 NASB)

We have both Jesus and Paul warning about traditions of men. We are told that Scripture is inspired. We are not told what oral traditions, if any, might be inspired. The Catholic Church claims to have Apostolic Tradition. However to accept this Tradition as inspired and infallible we must first accept the Catholic Church’s claims about itself. To do so we must agree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures that deal with the Church. This requires our private interpretation of the passages involved, if only to determine that we agree with the Church.

Given the statements in two the passages I quoted at the beginning of this, the whole emphasis on the overwhelming use of what is written versus oral tradition in the Bible, the mixed treatment given to tradition, the lack of Scriptural proof of any infallible unwritten tradition, I believe that Sola Scriptura is implicitly taught in the Scriptures. While some traditions may be true, they are not necessary for salvation. We do not need to know everything, even if we want to our feel we should know. There is no way to know which are true without accepting the Church’s own interpretation of Scripture.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl:
I believe you are missing the point here. Sure, they had some disagreements, but that is how Church doctrines developed. Ultimately, however, they had to conform to the final interpretation and ultimate authority of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit. That’s the seminal difference between their discussions and the total theological chaos extant in Protestantism today. Without a final authority, the gates are flung open for any wild interpretation(s), heresy, or what-have-you theology to take root. Don’t like my interpretation of scripture? Well, I’ll just start my own church based upon my on “unique” interpretations. After all, my interpretation is just as “fallible” as yours or anyone else’s for that matter.

I don’t think that I am missing the point.

One of my points is that the early Church was much broader in what was acceptable than the Church is today. Most of the fathers I cite died before any final determination was made on the subject of the quote. Why would God accept what they believed then but won’t accept it now if we believe the same thing? To me development of doctrine is restricting what is accepted as orthodox as compared to what was formerly accepted.

Another thing is to point out that it is not necessary to believe everything a father wrote to cite them in respect of a certain matter. The Catholic Church accepts somethings a father writes but not others. Protestants are therefore not inconsistent in doing the same thing.

As an aside, the Apostles were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and received the whole divine revelation. Even if Tradition is valid, how is it possible to understand that revelation better than those to whom it was given and to whom all truth was revealed?

 

[roveau]

Quote:
"If you can sum up your belief in Sola Scriptura for me in a concise argument, that would be awesome… Thanks.

• Michael"

I left the Catholic Church in my late teens for a fundamental sect that believed that every word in the Bible was the true and valid word and revelation of God. There was no need for a Pope, Magisterium, Tradition etc., if you had the very word of God at your disposal (ie the Bible). That is the basis for Sola Scriptura among Protestants.

The pivotal Scripture cited is II Timothy 3:16
‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness’.

That’s it concisely. It took many years for the Lord to get me to understand the Catholic understanding of the Scriptures and it was a difficult and convoluted journey.

Love in Christ,

Rove

 

[roveau]

I should add that, of course, that Scripture is true but it doesn’t exclude Tradition or the fact that the Holy Spirit has continued it’s work ever since.

Plus it does well to remember that at the time of writing the only Scriptures were those of the Old Testament. The New Testament had not yet been put together as we know it.

Rove

 

[Mhz]

What do you consider as absolutes? How do you know that your absolutes are correct? Can you list a few of God’s absolutes that you feel are valid? And, of those that you think are valid, how do you know that you have not imprinted your fingerprint on them?

Do you believe that you have the authority and educational background to determine which doctrines are valid or not? That’s what it sounds like and if I am wrong, please forgive me…

• Michael

OK. I’ll repeat two absolutes that I posted before… “Godly absolutes include his nature and his purpose….” Your suggestion that the Trinity is an absolute would be debated by many but not something I would care to argue against.

I doubt my fingerprints can alter God’s nature or his purpose. As far as education, it doesn’t take a PhD to know God, or recognize when doctrines come from men.

As far as authority; I speak with the same authority we all have as believers… from the Holy Spirit.

 

[RWMorris]

… As far as authority; I speak with the same authority we all have as believers… from the Holy Spirit.

If you are speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit, as all well meaning Protestants believe, why are there 20,000 + denominations? There should be only one visible, united Church, as Jesus promised.

 

[guanophore]

OK. I’ll repeat two absolutes that I posted before… “Godly absolutes include his nature and his purpose….” Your suggestion that the Trinity is an absolute would be debated by many but not something I would care to argue against.

I doubt my fingerprints can alter God’s nature or his purpose. As far as education, it doesn’t take a PhD to know God, or recognize when doctrines come from men.

As far as authority; I speak with the same authority we all have as believers… from the Holy Spirit.

Mhz, you are off the thread topic. If you are so authorized by the HS, maybe you can discipline yourself to follow the forum rules. If you want to discuss this, please start a new thread.

 

[guanophore]

What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura. What is your argument for Sola Scriptura?

• Michael

Well Michael, I see that we are over 100 posts, and your plea has gone largely unanswered. I maintain that you have posted in the wrong area of the forum. Most of the SS don’t ever come over here to Apologetics. They confine themseves to the non-Catholic religions forum. I am sure SyCarl would be happy to relocate with you.

 

[Mhz]

If you are speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit, as all well meaning Protestants believe, why are there 20,000 + denominations? There should be only one visible, united Church, as Jesus promised.

Guanophore is correct; your questions are taking me off topic. Let me try to bring it back on subject.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura requires a belief that that 100% of the scripture we have is inerrant and straight from the hand of God (or at least it should). Would we not all agree?

If our favorite translation had the slightest error, and yet was the absolute foundation of what we relied on to build our daily religious duty and practice, over the years we would all be in trouble… would we not?

Humor me here… if there are any of man’s personal opinions or doctrines reflected in the translation we are devoted to, it could (and has) become a tool of manipulation. This gets back to Morris’ question about the 20,000 denominations… I think it proves my point.

The reason there are 20,000 protestant denominations is because there are nearly that many bible translations. Each of these well meaning denominations (tongue in cheek) has their scriptural basis for what they believe. And if they all believe in Sola Scriptura we have the makings of a perfect storm. Most, believe to the exclusion of others in the universal Church, and many to the exclusion of personal salvation.

The doctrine of SS would only be worth staking your religious lives on if God had written the entire bible on tablets of stone and not just 10 commandments. Instead, after 2000 plus years we don’t have one original manuscript, just copy after hand written copy.

This does not mean scripture has no value or purpose; just easy to abuse. Amazingly the history, concepts, and principles taught in scripture remain very accurate over the years, but unfortunately, not without some human influence. Without a spiritual plumb bob to test all scripture it would be a religious disaster much as we have today.

I’d be happy to give you some specific examples provided you don’t get me in trouble with the forum police, again.

 

[tmac1956]

I don’t think that I am missing the point.

One of my points is that the early Church was much broader in what was acceptable than the Church is today. Most of the fathers I cite died before any final determination was made on the subject of the quote. Why would God accept what they believed then but won’t accept it now if we believe the same thing? To me development of doctrine is restricting what is accepted as orthodox as compared to what was formerly accepted.

Ok…

Another thing is to point out that it is not necessary to believe everything a father wrote to cite them in respect of a certain matter. The Catholic Church accepts somethings a father writes but not others. Protestants are therefore not inconsistent in doing the same thing.

They are inconcistent if what they accept varies from the doctrines declared by the Church.

As an aside, the Apostles were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and received the whole divine revelation. Even if Tradition is valid, how is it possible to understand that revelation better than those to whom it was given and to whom all truth was revealed?

Well, that’s the deposit of faith preserved (via the Holy Spirit) by the Catholic Church, without whom all of the heresies of the past and present would have been/be victorious.

 

[RWMorris]

Guanophore is correct; your questions are taking me off topic. Let me try to bring it back on subject.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura requires a belief that that 100% of the scripture we have is inerrant and straight from the hand of God (or at least it should). Would we not all agree?

If our favorite translation had the slightest error, and yet was the absolute foundation of what we relied on to build our daily religious duty and practice, over the years we would all be in trouble… would we not?

Humor me here… if there are any of man’s personal opinions or doctrines reflected in the translation we are devoted to, it could (and has) become a tool of manipulation. This gets back to Morris’ question about the 20,000 denominations… I think it proves my point.

The reason there are 20,000 protestant denominations is because there are nearly that many bible translations. Each of these well meaning denominations (tongue in cheek) has their scriptural basis for what they believe. And if they all believe in Sola Scriptura we have the makings of a perfect storm. Most, believe to the exclusion of others in the universal Church, and many to the exclusion of personal salvation.

The doctrine of SS would only be worth staking your religious lives on if God had written the entire bible on tablets of stone and not just 10 commandments. Instead, after 2000 plus years we don’t have one original manuscript, just copy after hand written copy.

This does not mean scripture has no value or purpose; just easy to abuse. Amazingly the history, concepts, and principles taught in scripture remain very accurate over the years, but unfortunately, not without some human influence. Without a spiritual plumb bob to test all scripture it would be a religious disaster much as we have today.

I’d be happy to give you some specific examples provided you don’t get me in trouble with the forum police, again.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that all those translations are confusing the Holy Spirit? After all you stated,

Originally Posted by Mhz forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… As far as authority; I speak with the same authority we all have as believers… from the Holy Spirit.

Why is everyone else confused, but you are not?

Have you ever considered that the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised, is that “spiritual plumb bob”?

 

[Mhz]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that all those translations are confusing the Holy Spirit? After all you stated,
Why is everyone else confused, but you are not?

Have you ever considered that the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised, is that “spiritual plumb bob”?

I wish it wasn’t true but I can be just as confused as the rest of the faithful.

It’s the mysteries of God that makes this life so fun to live and learn. That’s why I read and respond to these great forums. We all have much to learn from others who have walked before us, or with us, but then there are a few lessons that I don’t want to experience twice.

I actually find much to love about the Catholic Church, especially its beautiful liturgical practices, but one of my life lessons of 50+ years is being too dependent on clergy to hear from God.

My idea of a plum bob is knowing God, and his true nature, and testing all scripture accordingly. It would be like reading a letter from your farther, or a good friend, and having the ability to read between the lines because you know them so well. This seems to work much better for me, personally.

For others, they would prefer that someone else closer to God explain his letter… but that someone else better be right.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

We have both Jesus and Paul warning about traditions of men. We are told that Scripture is inspired. We are not told what oral traditions, if any, might be inspired. The Catholic Church claims to have Apostolic Tradition. However to accept this Tradition as inspired and infallible we must first accept the Catholic Church’s claims about itself. To do so we must agree with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures that deal with the Church. This requires our private interpretation of the passages involved, if only to determine that we agree with the Church.

It’s certainly true that everyone implicitly brings their own filters to the analysis. It’s an incredibly difficult trap to avoid. Even in the above paragraph, when I think you’re trying to keep things as neutral as possible, you slip into an implicit sola scriptura mindset when you point out that scripture does not tell us which traditions are inspired and infallible. If scripture is not intended to be the be-all end-all, then we need not expect any such definitive list in scripture.

But I don’t think we’re at an impasse. Even in the absence of a definitive list of sacred traditions, scripture suggests a way to proceed: “Test everything; retain what is good.” I wonder how we could go about testing, say, prayer to the saints. Two ideas come to mind.

First, personal experimentation. Pick a saint or an angel that you’re comfortable with, and pray to him. I would suggest something like “Saint ____, please help bring me closer to Jesus” rather than “Saint ____, please help me win the lottery.”

An obvious difficult is subjectivity. Again, we’ve got our personal filters, and I imagine that if the tester is uncomfortable with saintly intercession for whatever reason, it would be hard to “quantify” the prayer’s effectiveness.

Which brings me to the second idea: look at the lives of people with a great devotion to the saints. Whether it’s the Blessed Mother or any other saint, does it seem to be interfering or facilitating their relationship with Christ? When I look at the lives of the saints, I see lots of Marian devotion, and it sure doesn’t seem to get in the way of Christ.

God bless.

 

[AwGusTeen]

It depends on how you define sola scriptura. Scripture is the sole infallible record of divine revelation and clearly contains all things necessary for salvation, either explicitly or by necessary implication. It is in this sense that most mainline Protestants define scripture alone. It does not exclude a place for tradition, but tradition is secondary to the scriptures and anything based on tradition is not necessary, even though it may be true. Defined this way there are clear indications of sola scriptura among the early church fathers, even though they may also refer to and use tradition.

I will provide a couple of examples.

Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, Paragraph 14)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 1)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.ii.html

John Chrysostom, (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/23053.htm

As for scriptural the most common example is:

Now I am familiar with the Catholic arguments with respect to this passage, such as it refers only to the Old Testament and that it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient only profitable. I will quote from John Chrysostom’s explanation of it.

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)
newadvent.org/fathers/230709.htm

Have you examined the Catholic ideas seperating Material Sufficiency from Formal Sufficiency of Scripture?

 

[RWMorris]

I wish it wasn’t true but I can be just as confused as the rest of the faithful.

It’s the mysteries of God that makes this life so fun to live and learn. That’s why I read and respond to these great forums. We all have much to learn from others who have walked before us, or with us, but then there are a few lessons that I don’t want to experience twice.

I actually find much to love about the Catholic Church, especially its beautiful liturgical practices, but one of my life lessons of 50+ years is being too dependent on clergy to hear from God.

My idea of a plum bob is knowing God, and his true nature, and testing all scripture accordingly. It would be like reading a letter from your farther, or a good friend, and having the ability to read between the lines because you know them so well. This seems to work much better for me, personally.

For others, they would prefer that someone else closer to God explain his letter… but that someone else better be right.

We should never put too much confidence in an individual. Even the Pope can get it wrong occasionally.

But the Bible made us a promise that there would be a Church that will lead us to the Truth, and told us that the Church is, “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth”. Jesus also told us his Church would always be here, that Satan would not succeed in destroying it, that it would be like a city on a hill, a light to the world.

There is only one Church that has always been here. There is only one Church where the gospel is preached to all nations. Its clergy may drift from the truth from time to time, many of its laity may also do so, but the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has always acted to correct those lapses and abuses. God has even allowed local churches (parishes) to be destroyed when they drift too far from his Truth (see Revelation).

I have to go to work now, have a great day. God bless you,