Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter AveMaria12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AveMaria12

Guest
I found this site which attempts to debunk all of our points against sola scriptura. Of course, it isn’t sufficient to refute the Church’s points, but it took many of the verses I’ve often relied on for apologetics. Are their interpretations of these verses accurate?
 
I found this site which attempts to debunk all of our points against sola scriptura. Of course, it isn’t sufficient to refute the Church’s points, but it took many of the verses I’ve often relied on for apologetics. Are their interpretations of these verses accurate?
It seems that you’ve forgotten to provide the link! 😉

Where can we read this ostensible mass refutation of passages commonly deployed in the battle against sola scriptura? 😛
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist! All scripture is subject to interpretation & explanation - just check out how looong those protestant sermons go on for. Just ask a protestant what is meant by “…eat my body…drink my blood…” from john’s gospel, and it won’t be what Scripture says!
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist! All scripture is subject to interpretation & explanation - just check out how looong those protestant sermons go on for. Just ask a protestant what is meant by “…eat my body…drink my blood…” from john’s gospel, and it won’t be what Scripture says!
Or James chapter two. Especially this line:

[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The statement rings clear as a bell… except if one has made sola fide into a bedrock dogma.
 
2nd Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2nd Timothy 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

1st Corinthians 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

1st Timothy 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth

These are verses that go against the sola scriptura belief - after all, how can sola scriptura be a correct belief if scripture disproves it?

Also, the bible verse common for backing up the sola scriptura is 2nd Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Catholics are for this verse 100%, After all, “All Scripture is God-breathed,” not “Only Scripture.” Most interpret this passage as if it said “only,” Yet the bible verse says “all,” which would include Tradition and Church
 
Sola Scriptura allows you to have the most absurd interpretations of the bible, and they don’t understand each other. Don’t go to Sola Scriptura bro, it’s a trap.
 
Amen! Sola Scriptura is a vicious cycle of interpreations.

Is there many interpretations of the Bible? Yes. Are they all true? No.
 
That’s Why there are those dumb creationists New Earth who denies Evolution. And many other crazy things, as some “Christian” Churches who allows Gay Marriage, and all this christian fundamentalists, you allow them to interpretate the bible for themselves and its a matter of time to have a bunch of lunatics who think they have the only true vision of the bible, and they never agree with each other. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura… I don’t know why protestants love it. It is the Deform Protestant in its purity
 
We (Catholics) don’t deny the Evolution theory. We believe that if there was a “big bang,” God pulled the trigger and was the creator through the process of evolution.
Also, how can protestants have Sola Scriptura when they have revised the bible so that they are missing seven books? They have excluded books of the Bible, how can one take away God’s word to fit one’s beliefs without denying the all-knowing God and divinely inspired scripture?
 
=philial;9660363]Sola Scriptura doesn’t exist! All scripture is subject to interpretation & explanation
Sola scriptura doesn’t deny the role of the Church to set doctrine or to teach. In fact sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines accountable to scripture. So, yes, scripture is subject to interpretation and explanation - the responsibility of the Church. Lutherans see scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds.
  • just check out how looong those protestant sermons go on for.
and often Catholic homilies are too short.
Just ask a protestant what is meant by “…eat my body…drink my blood…” from john’s gospel, and it won’t be what Scripture says!
Do you consider Lutherans to be protestant? Here’s the Lutheran response:
we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Jon
 
Or James chapter two. Especially this line:

[24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

The statement rings clear as a bell… except if one has made sola fide into a bedrock dogma.
It rings a bell for those of us who belief we are justified by grace through faith, that a true, saving faith is a faith that works through love (Gal 5:6). Failure in this regard indicates a dead faith, as James states, and not a saving faith.

Jon
 
**That’s Why there are those dumb creationists New Earth who denies Evolution. **And many other crazy things, as some “Christian” Churches who allows Gay Marriage, and all this christian fundamentalists, you allow them to interpretate the bible for themselves and its a matter of time to have a bunch of lunatics who think they have the only true vision of the bible, and they never agree with each other. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura… I don’t know why protestants love it. It is the Deform Protestant in its purity
“Dumb.” Do you mean unable to speak? Or stupid? The first is clearly incorrect. The second is clearly uncharitable.

“lunatics”. Do you mean they stare at the moon? Or are crazy? The first is probably incorrect. The second is clearly uncharitable.

If you find their position doesn’t make sense to you, that’s fine. Defend your position. I don’t agree with fundamentalists and liberal Christian groups either, and I can state why, but they are mostly not dumb, nor are they lunatics.

Jon
 
Sola scriptura doesn’t deny the role of the Church to set doctrine or to teach. In fact sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines accountable to scripture. So, yes, scripture is subject to interpretation and explanation - the responsibility of the Church. Lutherans see scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds.

and often Catholic homilies are too short.

Do you consider Lutherans to be protestant? Here’s the Lutheran response:

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Jon
Would you agree that non Lutherians should be correctly refered to as solo scriptue? As they clearly do not practice the doctrine as orginally taught.
 
I found this site which attempts to debunk all of our points against sola scriptura. Of course, it isn’t sufficient to refute the Church’s points, but it took many of the verses I’ve often relied on for apologetics. Are their interpretations of these verses accurate?
Take the two points where he attempts to directly refute the passages in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15. In both of those passages the congregations are commanded to hold to Tradition, whether delivered in writing or orally. In both cases the approach is taken to simply insist “no it doesn’t mean that”. This approach isn’t “biblical” its arbitrary insistence that when Paul tells them to follow tradition he didn’t mean what he said at all.

The biggest problem facing the sola scripturasist is that without tradition no one would know which books are in the Bible. Even in the middle of their long standing dispute about which books are in the OT this is true. To refute the church they point to the authority of some earlier group of Jews to close the canon, and rely on tradition not mentioned in scripture to determine what those books are. The dispute is not over whether or not to accept tradition and authority but rather over whose tradition and authority do we accept.

They don’t realize this though. If you point it out don’t expect immediately recognition. Lord knows I didn’t realize it either and when I did it took a long time to get my head around the implications.
 
Would you agree that non Lutherians should be correctly refered to as solo scriptue? As they clearly do not practice the doctrine as orginally taught.
I think those who refuse to look at the councils and creeds, and the ECF’s for understanding, and look only to scripture are solo scriptura, yes.

Jon
 
Sola scriptura doesn’t deny the role of the Church to set doctrine or to teach. In fact sola scriptura is a practice of the Church to hold teachers, teachings, doctrines accountable to scripture. So, yes, scripture is subject to interpretation and explanation - the responsibility of the Church. Lutherans see scripture in light of the confessions, the early councils, and the creeds.

and often Catholic homilies are too short.

Do you consider Lutherans to be protestant? Here’s the Lutheran response:

From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Jon
The Church? Which Church? The one from Luther’s youth that stretched back to the dawn of the faith, or the one He re-configured to his own image & likeness?
 
It rings a bell for those of us who belief we are justified by grace through faith, that a true, saving faith is a faith that works through love (Gal 5:6). Failure in this regard indicates a dead faith, as James states, and not a saving faith.
We’ve talked about the meaning of “faith” in another thread, so I’ll keep it simple (what I’m driving at will become clear after your response):

Is a dead body still a body?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top