Sola Scriptura...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truth_Faith13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=landon13;11479433]Hi,
I understand where you are coming from but you have to see that we can’t get anywhere based on the Bible alone. Look at Protestantism. They believe in sola scriptura and there are 33,000 denominations all saying they interpret the Bible the correct way. Do you think all of them are right?
Correlative, but not necessarily causative, even if one accepts the 33,000 notion (which includes 248 or some such separate Catholic Churches because it lists them by country).
In 2 Peter, St. Peter tells us that “There are some things in [the Scriptures] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” We need the apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible correctly for us in line with 2,000 years of apostolic tradition.
Hmmm. what about the other apostolic traditions that are the same age, and claim the same Tradition?
Did you know that the New Testament was not formally compiled until about AD 300?
And not even then or since, has there ever been universal agreement on the canon, even prior to the Reformation era.
What were they relying on until then? The early Catholic Church relied on the apostolic tradition of letters and oral word from the apostles who Christ anointed to go and preach the Gospel. That is why so many times in the letters of St. Paul he reminds readers to “hold fast to the traditions you have been taught” or to listen to the “oral tradition”
Indeed! Where written scripture has its source.
Yes, the Bible is the final public revelation of God to man. But, everything God has revealed to man is not inside the 73 books of the Bible. St. John in his Gospel tells us that “there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” There is a lot more that was revealed to us than what is in the Bible alone. This is continued and held by the apostolic tradition whether in the writings of the early Church fathers or written by doctors of the Church hundreds of years later, these “traditions” are necessary for the preservation of the Church and the interpretation of Scripture.
No argument. But who decides what has been revealed, and how does that happen exactly
Take all of this from a former Protestant. I found within the Catholic Church the true Biblical understanding of the Bible and following of Apostolic Tradition that I could find no where else.
And may you be blessed there in word and sacrament.

Jon
 
Correlative, but not necessarily causative, even if one accepts the 33,000 notion (which includes 248 or some such separate Catholic Churches because it lists them by country).
Dividing 33,000 by 248 still leaves a boatload of man-initiated churches, doesn’t it? And since a lot of these smaller organizations DO NOT have a presence in all countries like the Catholic Church does, dividing ALL of them by 248 wouldn’t make sense. I think it is safe to say the the number of Protestant denominations is quite high.

Causitive? Yeah, I think that is reasonable. Luther wrote about the problem in his own day, right?
Hmmm. what about the other apostolic traditions that are the same age, and claim the same Tradition?
Age alone is not the deciding factor. Otherwise, we should all be animists or buddhists or something truly ancient.

Got pope? It’s a yes or no question.
And not even then or since, has there ever been universal agreement on the canon, even prior to the Reformation era.
There has in my Church.
No argument. But who decides what has been revealed, and how does that happen exactly
The Church to which God entrusted the Word of God (oral and written) to begin with. How? It’s kinda like rock, paper, scissors only more complicated…
 
If that is true, then Jesus did not build a very impressive Church, did he?

The Catholic Church is not wrong to some degree. It is prevented by God from teaching error to any degree in matters of faith and morals.
Actually, He built an incredibly impressive Church, but the fact is it is in human hands until His return. We do tend to foul things up at times.

Which part of the Catholic Church from Pentecost is protected in this way, Randy? It can’t be all parts.

Jon
 
Correlative, but not necessarily causative, even if one accepts the 33,000 notion (which includes 248 or some such separate Catholic Churches because it lists them by country).
Hmmm. what about the other apostolic traditions that are the same age, and claim the same Tradition?
Age alone is not the deciding factor. Otherwise, we should all be animists or buddhists or something truly ancient.

Got pope? It’s a yes or no question.
And not even then or since, has there ever been universal agreement on the canon, even prior to the Reformation era.
There has in my Church.
No argument. But who decides what has been revealed, and how does that happen exactly
The Church to which God entrusted the Word of God (oral and written) to begin with. How? It’s kinda like rock, paper, scissors only more complicated…
 
=Truth_Faith13;11479214]I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.
Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.
Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?
So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…
Thoughts?
First let me welcome you to CAF!🙂

What you propose is at best someones [a very mortal mans] opinion.

READ carefully in the sequence given:

Mt 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
Jn. 17:14-20 [take special note of verse 17:18]
Mk.16:14-15
Mt. 28:16-20
Eph. 4:4-8

**The SUMMARY of these passages is:

One TRUE God
can and DOES have only One TRUE Faith [anything more is illogical]
and Founded only One True Church [historically provable to be today’s CC]**

I missed your point on something being taught against the bible. Could you be more specific?

God Bless you!
Patrick
 
=landon13;11480296]
We need tradition which was sadly rejected by Luther to make up for his failed doctrines that also led him to not only reject tradition but try and eradicate the deuterocanonical books from the canon…
sigh.

Luther’s German Die Bibel includes 74 books, all translated by him and his colleagues. Luther’s Bible has one more book than the typical western Bible. He included the Prayer of Manasseh. So, apparently he was trying to “eradicate” the DC’s by translating them and including them in his publication. :hmmm:

And following in his footsteps, the LCMS has published an “apocrypha” commentary, all in an effort to eradicate them.
as well as many New Testament books with non-protestant beliefs like James, Hebrews, Revelation, among others.
Source. Where did Luther say he wanted to get rid of the Antilegomena? I have asked for a source for this many times, as many times as I have seen this accusation made. I have yet to see it.
Additionally, while I have no idea what non-protestant beliefs you refer to, I reject out of hand the notion that these books mentioned contain “non-Lutheran” beliefs.

Jon
 
If that is true, then Jesus did not build a very impressive Church, did he?
Sorry you see it that way. We are not perfect nor did he expect us to be…yet he still died. :o
The Catholic Church is not wrong to some degree. It is prevented by God from teaching error to any degree in matters of faith and morals.
And I respect you for believing that. 🙂
 
Actually, He built an incredibly impressive Church, but the fact is it is in human hands until His return. We do tend to foul things up at times.

Which part of the Catholic Church from Pentecost is protected in this way, Randy? It can’t be all parts.

Jon
Infallibility protects the pope individually and the bishops in union with him. This includes Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra pronouncements of the Holy Father.

Additionally, the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church teaches without error.

I’m still doing a bit of research on the Ordinary Magisterium.
 
=Randy Carson;11480623]Dividing 33,000 by 248 still leaves a boatload of man-initiated churches, doesn’t it? And since a lot of these smaller organizations DO NOT have a presence in all countries like the Catholic Church does, dividing ALL of them by 248 wouldn’t make sense. I think it is safe to say the the number of Protestant denominations is quite high.
No. the numbering process used by one of those groups counted 248 (or something of that sort) Roman Catholic Churches, dividing your communion by country.
Causitive? Yeah, I think that is reasonable. Luther wrote about the problem in his own day, right?
I don’t think he would have determined sola scriptura as the cause. In fact, as the practice sola scriptura is designed to hold all teachings accountable to scripture, not accept every interpretation as acceptable.
Age alone is not the deciding factor. Otherwise, we should all be animists or buddhists or something truly ancient.
I absolutely agree
Got pope? It’s a yes or no question.
Would like to have pope the way he’s supposed to be. 😉
There has in my Church.
As have the others.
The Church to which God entrusted the Word of God (oral and written) to begin with. How? It’s kinda like rock, paper, scissors only more complicated…
Indeed. Way complicated.

Jon
 
I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. **The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. **The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.

Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.
You covered them pretty good here. If someone is proclaiming “truth” but it contradicts scripture, it isn’t truth.
 
I have been thinking about the idea of Solla Scriptura and was last night reading an article on another website (not catholic) which agreed with the principle. The basic idea was that the Bible being the inerrant word of God is the source to turn to when discerning whether something is true or not…biblical or unbiblical. The author explained that the idea wasn’t against traditions per se (ie ones that had been passed down through the generations orally etc) more, the bible should be the final word on whether or not to follow said traditions.

Sure in some sense this means that the Catholic Church believe in sola Scriptura, comparing everything to the Bible to check whether its biblical or not (note I am not saying it has to be IN the bible specifically just not to go against the Bible). Obviously if indeed the Catholic Church is Christs one true church and is therefore protected against the evils of hell, I can’t imagine the following happening but just for the sake of illustration say something was “taught” that was completely against the Bible - I am guessing catholics would know this was the case and not believe it. Thereby in someway following sola Scriptura.

Take converts for example, they join the Catholic Church based on their understanding of the bible and belief that the Catholic Church is the only church to follow the true biblical traditions…?

So maybe the difference is not in sola Scriptura per se…but interpretation of the bible/understanding. For example Protestants say praying to Mary is unbiblical, catholics say it is biblical. Both are basing their beliefs and understanding on the Bible…

Thoughts?
Sola Scriptura is not a principle of hermeneutics, its a practice of norming doctrine. That two churches use sola Scriptura as a practice, doesn’t mean they will agree, because they employ different hermeneutical principles.
 
The idea of sola Scriptura is self-refuting here is a situation lets say 10 different denominations decide to meet in a room and all of them have 10 different beliefs… Who decides which one is right and which one is wrong? Everyone will show their own verses supporting their doctrine…

Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus thought us to go to church. He didn’t say go and start debating with scriptures to decide who is right and who is wrong…
 
First let me welcome you to CAF!🙂

What you propose is at best someones [a very mortal mans] opinion.

READ carefully in the sequence given:

Mt 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
Jn. 17:14-20 [take special note of verse 17:18]
Mk.16:14-15
Mt. 28:16-20
Eph. 4:4-8

**The SUMMARY of these passages is:

One TRUE God
can and DOES have only One TRUE Faith [anything more is illogical]
and Founded only One True Church [historically provable to be today’s CC]**

I missed your point on something being taught against the bible. Could you be more specific?

God Bless you!
Patrick
Thank you for those passages! 🙂

What I meant was should the church ever teach anything which was against scripture…people would know that it was not true because it is against the Bible.

I guess this is similar to the hen or the egg situation (which came first?)

Even by showing me those passages you are showing me scripture to show how the Catholic Church is the true one yet the Catholic Church claims that there is more to it than just scripture but traditions…but the traditions that the church follows can not (and does not according to catholics) go against scripture.

So in effect what people seem to be saying is the church put together the scriptures to uphold their traditions yet the church is also “backed up” by the scriptures as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

:confused:
 
=Chiefsinner;11482038]The idea of sola Scriptura is self-refuting here is a situation lets say 10 different denominations decide to meet in a room and all of them have 10 different beliefs… Who decides which one is right and which one is wrong? Everyone will show their own verses supporting their doctrine…
Couple of points.

If all someone is doing if proof-texting, that is not sola scriptura. The idea that you don’t look at the writings of the Fathers, the teachings of the early Church is not a sola scriptura idea. For example, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon says the following in defending the doctrine of the real presence:​

…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.
He not only mentions scripture, 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28, he also cites the Church, both east and west, and the Fathers, specifically Vulgarius and Cyril.

Sola scriptura is simply the practice of using scripture as the final norm for doctrine.
Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus thought us to go to church. He didn’t say go and start debating with scriptures to decide who is right and who is wrong…
#You don’t think they debated during the ecumenical councils? Of course they did. And when a Lutheran has a dispute about doctrine, we take it to the Church.

Jon
 
Thank you for those passages! 🙂

What I meant was should the church ever teach anything which was against scripture…people would know that it was not true because it is against the Bible.

I guess this is similar to the hen or the egg situation (which came first?)
It is always the call of God to men that comes first and then the message has been written down. Jesus lived, died and rose again for people, not for a book, no matter how holy. We are what he is concerned with first and foremost. 🙂
Even by showing me those passages you are showing me scripture to show how the Catholic Church is the true one yet the Catholic Church claims that there is more to it than just scripture but traditions…but the traditions that the church follows can not (and does not according to catholics) go against scripture.
Correct. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself–he is in complete agreement with the Father and the Son. The Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Everything the Church teaches stems from Sacred Tradition of which the written word of God is a part. Indeed, the Bible is not a separate entity that stands alone, but part of an integral whole, which we call Sacred Tradition.
So in effect what people seem to be saying is the church put together the scriptures to uphold their traditions yet the church is also “backed up” by the scriptures as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, that’s right. It’s a both/and kind of arrangement rather than an either/or kind that our Protestant brethren so often make it out to be. The Bible and the Church are one, not separate. The thing is, though, that when all that is foretold in the Bible comes about, it will no longer be necessary. We won’t be consulting books in heaven–it will have been fulfilled. It is the Church, which is the Body of Christ, that will go on into eternity for God’s word is intrinsic to the Church and will go on in the Church through eternity. The Church embodies God’s word because it proclaims God’s last Word to man, which is Christ Jesus Our Lord. Remember that Jesus is the Word of God from which all other inspired words have their source.
 
The Bible and the Church are one, not separate.
Is this the official RCC stance? That the word of God, The Bible, is synonymous with the church? I don’t really see how that is possible, as one is a collection of manuscripts divinely inspired, and the other is a congregation of people… perhaps I’m being too literal? Is there any mention of this, say, in the catechism?
 
Couple of points.

If all someone is doing if proof-texting, that is not sola scriptura. The idea that you don’t look at the writings of the Fathers, the teachings of the early Church is not a sola scriptura idea. For example, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon says the following in defending the doctrine of the real presence:​

He not only mentions scripture, 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28, he also cites the Church, both east and west, and the Fathers, specifically Vulgarius and Cyril.

Sola scriptura is simply the practice of using scripture as the final norm for doctrine.

#You don’t think they debated during the ecumenical councils? Of course they did. And when a Lutheran has a dispute about doctrine, we take it to the Church.

Jon
I wish to respond to the bolded part, if I may. I agree that that is the definition, as envisioned by the reformers, of SS. However, it quickly devolved into every man interpreting the Bible for himself, which is why we have so many divisions and contrary opinions on major issues, not just minor ones, within Protestant Christianity.

You mentioned the 200+ “churches” in the Catholic Church. They aren’t separate “churches” in the sense that they are not in union with Rome. Most are simply local rites or others that have a certain amount of autonomy in some areas of jurisdiction, etc. But, they are not separate from Rome and therefore are not “protestant” denominations or anything of the kind. I just wanted to make that clear for our OP. 🙂

Also, the Catholic Church, both East and West, is the Church Christ founded to which he gave the charism of infallibility. This is his work, not the work of men, accomplished, again, not by men, but by the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Jesus prayed that we all be one. He never intended that the baptized should be separated by theology or authority.

How I wish all the good things our Protestant brethren have could be brought into the One Church so we could have a united effort in spreading the Gospel. We Catholics trust utterly and completely in Jesus’ promises of infallibility and indestructibility of his Church. The very fact that the Church has remained true to Christ’s word, in spite of men’s sins, vagaries, and finite understanding is proof enough that Jesus is capable of keeping his promises. I can’t understand how you can think that Jesus failed in this promise.

Perhaps you believe he never made such a promise? If that’s the case, I can understand your position, but since it’s right there in Scripture and the Church has withstood all the things that men could do to destroy her and her commission, from within and without, I would think it would be obvious, but then maybe you can’t see that either? I’m just wondering out loud here because in so many other aspects you seem on top of things. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top