Sola Scriptura

[fulloftruth]

I just thought of something. If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it

Since I have not seen a response to this I thought I would re-post it. I would aslo like to respond to the quotes of Liguori Posted to substantiate some Church teaching on worship of Mary. Brian, as a former Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself. You can’t produce one church document that proposes worship of Mary or any one else other than God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Regardless of what any Saint may write, does not make it True or binding upon the Christain believer.

I love this idea that you, Brian, look at the Bible without any bias and without any pre-programmed thought processes, and we Catholics look at Scripture through corrupted Catholic Eyes. Maybe you should be Pope, seeing how you are filled with the charism of infallability. I guess you are Pope at your Church, and anyone else who can get a majority to see scripture his way.

 

[fulloftruth]

I just thought of something. If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it

Since I have not seen a response to this I thought I would re-post it. I would aslo like to respond to the quotes of Liguori Posted to substantiate some Church teaching on worship of Mary. Brian, as a former Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself. You can’t produce one church document that proposes worship of Mary or any one else other than God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Regardless of what any Saint may write, does not make it True or binding upon the Christain believer.

I love this idea that you, Brian, look at the Bible without any bias and without any pre-programmed thought processes, and we Catholics look at Scripture through corrupted Catholic Eyes. Maybe you should be Pope, seeing how you are filled with the charism of infallability. I guess you are Pope at your Church, and anyone else who can get a majority to see scripture his way.

 

[brianberean]

I just responded on your original thread.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

Since I have not seen a response to this I thought I would re-post it. I would aslo like to respond to the quotes of Liguori Posted to substantiate some Church teaching on worship of Mary. Brian, as a former Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself. You can’t produce one church document that proposes worship of Mary or any one else other than God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Regardless of what any Saint may write, does not make it True or binding upon the Christain believer.

Shame on me for providing evidence that the claims made by a Catholic poster on this thread were false? I never claimed to be posting an official Catholic document, I was providing evidence that Catholic prayers to Mary are not simply requests for her to pray for them.

Brian

 

[Pax]

Brian,

If all you are claiming is that prayers of honor are given to Mary as well as prayer requests then I concur. But this does not seem to be consistent with the complete thrust of your posts.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Pax:

Brian,

If all you are claiming is that prayers of honor are given to Mary as well as prayer requests then I concur. But this does not seem to be consistent with the complete thrust of your posts.

I think that people were responding to the general accusation that Catholics “pray to” Mary in the same way they “pray to” God. Those two type of “pray to’s” are different. Generally speaking, people who “pray to” Mary are asking her to pray for them. Of course, there have been times when people have penned poetic “prayers” in honor of, but that’s far less common than the asking for prayer kind of prayer. Catholics in general who “pray to” Mary are asking her to pray for them. The are not writing poetic prayers.

If someone is specifically referring to prayers written by individuals that they personally deem as worship it’s wrong to ask why “Catholics” do that. “Catholics”, generally speaking, don’t. A few have, sure. But relatively very few. When Catholic think of praying to Mary they’re thinking of the intercessory prayer kind of prayer.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Jehu13]

brianberean:
undefined

So if we are to use your theory that Scripture is inspired because it says it is then :

1. Do you believe that the Koran and Book of Mormon are inspired because both of those Books say they are inspired. Is that how we know what scripture is?

You did not answer my question? So here is the Question Again.

1. Do you believe that the Koran and Book of Mormon are inspired because both of those Books say they are inspired. Is that how we know what scripture is?

 

[hlgomez]

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it.

What I was asking for was proof that “all RC teachings” came from the Apostles. Not for a single Catholic teaching.

Brian,

You’re asking me for a proof. Since you are saying that we may have “none”, I answered you with just “one” so you don’t have an excuse that we really have “none.”

This “one” is very SIMPLE DOCTRINE of the faith–and the very important one. I am asking you now WHETHER your belief is in line with the apostles, Scriptures and the early fathers regarding the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the very summit of our Christian life. Without the Eucharist there will be no Church, and there can be no Church without the Eucharist.

Shalom,

Pio

 

[Anne_Carmel]

General Reminder:

The charity level of this discussion appears to be deteriorating. Please self-edit for tone and content. If the charity level does not improve, this thread will have to be locked.

 

[Philthy]

LOL…I had almost this same thought as I was listening to a Sola Scriptura argument being made by a poster…I realized that his high view of the Scriptures authority in the life of the believer NECESSITATED an entity that would be able to interpret it, for what good is it to have a document that leads you to your destination that you cant interpret?

**Brianberean: **You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC.

Philthy: Not quite Brian. It’s not that you can’t interpret Scripture correctly, its that you can’t know that you’ve interpreted it correctly without the RCC. You might actually interpret it correctly, but you won’t know that you have until you subject your interpretation to an external, objective authority. No amount of intellect brings you to absolute truth. Truth exists apart from our capacity to know or fully understand it. We must humble ourselves to this reality.
**Brianberean: **How did you come to the conclusion that the RCC is the one true church? If you are a cradle catholic, how do you conclude that the RCC is the correct “infallible” interpreter of Scripture? Why not the Eastern Orthodox or Mormons or JWs?

Philthy: Valid questions for sure (with compelling answers that strongly favor the RCC) but not on this thread! This thread is on why Sola Scriptura per se is untenable as a theological entity. And the reasons are several, but Ill just offer 3 here:

1. Scripture doesn’t explicitly claim it - so the very claim is not scriptural and contrdradicts itself. Not a good start!
2. Scripture doesn’t define it’s components for us. The cannon was decided outside of scripture. Through scripture alone, we have no scripture to go by. Again, not a small problem.
3. Scripture expressly calls the “Church of the Living God” as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1Tim 3:15). Now the concept of SS is actually violating scripture.

Quote:

25,000 denominations that claim Sola Scriptura and cant agree with eachother prove the necessity of a Holy Spirit inspired entity to interpret the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.

**Brianberean:**Where do you come up with 25,000? What proof do you have that all 25,000 “can’t agree with each other”? What is your source (evidence)?

Philthy: Do you really want to go here? Here, try this site for starters: **reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/categories/protdenom.html

It’s not that they can’t agree with one another. They can agree that there are different valid interpretations of the bible. **So what does that leave them with? Unity of faith? I would say not, by definition. The truth? I guess we could say that one of the denominations may have it, but all the others don’t - that would be logical. I think the next test would be to find the denomination that has not changed its version of the truth (or has not descended from a denomination that has changed its version of the truth) since the beginning of Christianity. That makes life quite easy actually, since all but the Lutherans and Orthodox churches are eliminated with a 500 year search into history. Now then, since we have access to the writings of the earliest Christians available to us on a variety of topics, we can see which church today believes the very same things that were believed early on…My journey has led me to see the RCC as the most logical choice. I wish you well in your search. I’ll only add that you shouldn’t despise the RCC because of all the spiritually weak people who claim to be a part of it (in America), rather you should see that as an invitation to use your talent to help restore it.

 

[kayla]

Brain, I have read all your posts and it seems to me you have a very negative outlook on the Catholic Church…how about this?
Go to this website
catholicity.com/maryfoundation/hahn.html
order the CD IT’S FREE) Conversion of Scott Hahn… it’s all about the Sola Scriptura and the Bible told from a protestant stand point.
You may be quit surprised!

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

kayla:

Brain, I have read all your posts and it seems to me you have a very negative outlook on the Catholic Church…how about this?
Go to this website
catholicity.com/maryfoundation/hahn.html
order the CD IT’S FREE) Conversion of Scott Hahn… it’s all about the Sola Scriptura and the Bible told from a protestant stand point.
You may be quit surprised!

I have that, it’s a great cd! Great recommendation.

 

[brianberean]

Jehu13:

You did not answer my question? So here is the Question Again.

1. Do you believe that the Koran and Book of Mormon are inspired because both of those Books say they are inspired. Is that how we know what scripture is?

I ignored you question because it is irrelevent in this context. However, to reward your persistance I will address why it is irrelevent:

I wasn’t discussing the subject of which texts are inspired with Muslims or Mormons. If I were I would have had to provide evidence that Scripture is inspired and their respective books are not.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

You’re asking me for a proof. Since you are saying that we may have “none”, I answered you with just “one” so you don’t have an excuse that we really have “none.”

This “one” is very SIMPLE DOCTRINE of the faith–and the very important one. I am asking you now WHETHER your belief is in line with the apostles, Scriptures and the early fathers regarding the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the very summit of our Christian life. Without the Eucharist there will be no Church, and there can be no Church without the Eucharist.

Shalom,

Pio

I never said that there were none. Why should I defend a view I don’t hold?

Brian

 

[brianberean]

**Brianberean: **You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC.

Philthy: Not quite Brian. It’s not that you can’t interpret Scripture correctly, its that you can’t know that you’ve interpreted it correctly without the RCC. You might actually interpret it correctly, but you won’t know that you have until you subject your interpretation to an external, objective authority. No amount of intellect brings you to absolute truth. Truth exists apart from our capacity to know or fully understand it. We must humble ourselves to this reality.

So how can you know you’ve interpreted the official rulings of the RCC correctly? Everything you know is interpreted through your fallible brain, right? And I would hardly call the Catholic Church “objective”.

1. Scripture doesn’t explicitly claim it - so the very claim is not scriptural and contrdradicts itself. Not a good start!

This does nothing to discredit the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. How do you define Sola Scriptura?

1. Scripture doesn’t define it’s components for us. The cannon was decided outside of scripture. Through scripture alone, we have no scripture to go by. Again, not a small problem.

Not a problem at all if you correctly understand Sola Scriptura.

1. Scripture expressly calls the “Church of the Living God” as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1Tim 3:15). Now the concept of SS is actually violating scripture.

1 Tim 3:15 (in context) is referring to a local church. Also, being the “pillar and foundation of Truth” is not the same as being “the Truth” or being “infallible”.

**Brianberean:**Where do you come up with 25,000? What proof do you have that all 25,000 “can’t agree with each other”? What is your source (evidence)?

Philthy: Do you really want to go here? Here, try this site for starters: reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/categories/protdenom.html

Your “proof” is for a lot less than 25,000 denominations.

It’s not that they can’t agree with one another. They can agree that there are different valid interpretations of the bible**. **

The Catholic Church concedes that there are different valid interpretations of Scripture. For instance whether Genesis is literal or not or predestination. So are the rest of your claims valid concerning the Catholic Church?

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Not a problem at all if you correctly understand Sola Scriptura.

How do YOU define sola Scriptura? It’s been my experience that the precise definition of sola Scriptura isn’t entirely agreed upon by sola Scripturists.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

How do YOU define sola Scriptura? It’s been my experience that the precise definition of sola Scriptura isn’t entirely agreed upon by sola Scripturists.

In Christ,
Nancy

Basically the definition of sola scriptura is: Scripture is our sole infallible authority. Not our sole authority, just our sole infallible authority.

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Basically the definition of sola scriptura is: Scripture is our sole infallible authority. Not our sole authority, just our sole infallible authority.

Brian

As you know, Catholics believe that an infallible authority is necessary to assure that one’s understanding of scripture is not in error. Protestants believe such an authority is unnecessary. Why do they (you) feel it unnecessary in light of the conflicting and contradictory interpretations of the infallible scriptures held by sola Scripturists? It would seem that, at the least, each individual interpreter of scripture would need to consider himself an infallible authority in interpreting scripture, which would make scripture NOT the only infallible authority.

Hope that makes sense.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Greg_McPherran]

There was a person in a Christian sect at the time of St. Paul. St. Paul was trying to explain to this person why he was wrong to separate from unity with the original Church of God. The person said to St. Paul, “So I suppose you think your letters are on par with Scripture.”

Protestants, you get the message - stop playing games - you are not stupid.

Greg
Catholic

 

[fulloftruth]

I am starting to wrap my mind around Brians point of view, and it is quite shallow, and i say that with love. This idea that Catholic Teachings are as cryptic as scripture and need further interpretation or that because someone is a cradle Catholic and has not been freed of our enslavement from Catholic thought proccesses, shows agreat deal of insight into the imaturity of the author of such claims, and again I say this with pity and love. I thank God for the gift of faith, and the ability to humble myself to the authority that Christ put over me. Poor Brian thinks that Scripture is the only infallable authority, yet he cannot answer the question of how Scripture could be an infallable authority at all unless you know for sure that it has been compiled auhtentically and properly the way God wanted it assembled. And since all of Apostles were dead and Christ was in heaven when it was assembled, then there must be another infallible authority on earth, otherwise scripture could not have been infallibly assembled. Bamm !!! I also noticed how Brian was .another threader and said “does not present a problem for Sola Scriptura” and then proceeded to go on to the next thought without stating how it did not present a problem.

1. Scripture doesn’t explicitly claim it - so the very claim is not scriptural and contrdradicts itself. Not a good start!

This does nothing to discredit the correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. How do you define Sola Scriptura?

1. Scripture doesn’t define it’s components for us. The cannon was decided outside of scripture. Through scripture alone, we have no scripture to go by. Again, not a small problem.

Not a problem at all if you correctly understand Sola Scriptura

Where is the Church that has the power of binding and loosing,not only on earth but in heaven too. Sounds like an awful lot of Authority,and seein how nothing unpure and imperfect can be in heaven, then this church must be guarded from binding error on earth. We need only find this church, this city on a hill. Now since no one else is even claiming to be this Church that Christ himself said he would start, and the Church that is claiming to be it has been around since the time of Christ, and has as its founder the rock which Christ himself said he would use as its foundation. And is the only church that teaches all of the truth to every race and origen of people on earth. The Catholic Church is the only church on earth that has no specific ethnicity. It is rooted in every single race, and nationality of people on earth. What other Christian denomination can say this. Sounds like this is the Church that took the Great Commission seriously, and is the Church that takes her marching orders directly from Christ himself. Come Back to moral certitude Brian and come out of the grey areas of interpretation that Sola Scriptura leads to. Having a book as your final authority leaves the world with no authority to say this is heresy and this is truth.