Sola Scriptura . . .

[toaslan]

Hey, Michael, are we being hassled? MB’s voluntarily in the minority, and he’s bringing some good opposition against our apologetic muscles… I just want more responsiveness on substantial points already raised… are we jousting yet?

 

[Church_Militant]

I can see how you might see that as irrelevance.

Because it is…

True believers have a deep, inward conviction about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

I want to know God. I want to know Christ. I want to know about myself. I want to know how I can get to God. I want to know what is going to happen in the future.

Catholics do.

In Scripture I find God clearly revelaing Himself. He has chosen to reveal Himself there. Sure He reveals Himself in other ways as well, such as through creation (Ps 19), through man made in His image (Gen 1-3), through His Son (Heb 1:2), through believers, but primarily and most clearly through the Bible.

Yeah, well Catholics believe this as well…

In Scripture I find the truth about the holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, the redemptive plan of Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation by grace alone, and the secure truth about my future and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

No one argues these things…

I DO NOT FIND THESE TRUTHS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. In that system, I find corrupt leadership, good people working their way to heaven, insecurity about salvation b/c I don’t know if my deeds are good enough, a fictitious place called purgatory, and so on. I do not want to follow after a man named Cardinal Mahoney, being that I live in So Cal.

This is just Anti-catholic drivel here.

1. I find less corrupt leadership in the Catholic Church than I have seen in my 34 years outside the church. I saw it up close and personal.
2. “good people working their way to heaven”…Hogwash, and irrelevant to the topic of SS. This is an ignorant allegation that shows that you lack understanding of Catholic teaching. The answers to this you need only search the forum or the online library to find.
3. “insecurity about salvation b/c I don’t know if my deeds are good enough”. Garbage, Catholic soteriology may differ from what you have taught to believe, but it does indeed align with the New Testament while the security blanket religion of most n-Cs does not. Even all n-Cs do not agree concerning “eternal security” or whatever their particular pet position is.
4. (Again, this is all irrelevant to SS) “a fictitious place called purgatory”- Which is anything but fictitious. As this thread shows.

Give me God. Give me Jesus Christ. Give me truth about my sinfulness. Give me the true gospel of justification by faith. And give me the truth about my future.

Oh…we will. If you can stick around long enough…and stay on one topic without all the rhetorical propagandizing.

In short, give me the Scriptures, where I can find these truths.

Oh we will, no doubt about that, but first you show us (on this thread) where the Bible teaches that it is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice. If you can do that irrefutably, then you might have a case, but if not then you are going to be forced to reassess all that you believe that is based upon this fundamental error in doctrine.

I don’t want the corrupt doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church…

This is just anti-Catholic garbage here, and I strongly suggest that before you post again you take the time to make yourself familiar with the Forum Rules and Banned Topics Policy that you agreed to abide by when you chose to join us here at CAF.

The only thing that is corrupt is the errant new winds of doctrine that resulted from the reformers and now their modern day step-children. All this will come out over time, but you had better have all your notes to hand…because rhetoric and propaganda don’t wash around here.

Get the facts. Decide for yourself. I did.

 

[guanophore]

What this amounts to is a claim that there is only one internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture, and the Catholic Chuch contradicts this interpretation. What what little I know about the ambiguity inherent in natural languages, especially Greek, I’d say the claim that there is only one logically consistent interpretation of Scripture is prima facie false.

If there are multiple internally logically consistent interpretations of Scripture, then the question is not “Does the Catholic Church teach faith and practice that contradict my current interpretation of Scripture?” but “Does the Catholic Church possess an internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture?” From everything I can see, the answer to the second question is “Yes, it does,” in which case I must choose between my internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture and the Catholic Church’s internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture. Whatever evidence I use to make that decision, it must be evidence that exists outside of Scripture (since, by definition, no Scriptural evidence could contradict an internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture), so whether I choose to continue to hold my internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture or to change my beliefs and hold to the Catholic internally logically consistent interpretation of Scripture, I must integrate some non-Scriptural evidence in making my decision, thus contradicting Sola Scriptura in the process.

The weakest point in this argument is the claim that the Catholic Church possesses an internally consistent interpretation of Scripture, but I’ve not yet found someone who has been able to argue that it does not. Many will try to argue that the Church’s interpretation of Scripture contradicts their interpretation of Scripture, but none have yet been successful arguing that it contradicts its own interpretation of Scripture.

Jeremy

It seems like you are resting on a foundation of “logic” here, Jeremy. Unfortunately, matters of faith don’t always respond well to logic. In fact, it is the opposite! Faith may seem like foolishness to the logical. The reason that the Catholic Church is able to interpret the scriptures correctly is divine revelation, not logic. Jesus promised to lead us into all truth, and we believe that by FAITH. It is not build on a foundation of “logic” but of revelation, and faith in that revelation.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey, Michael, are we being hassled? MB’s voluntarily in the minority, and he’s bringing some good opposition against our apologetic muscles… I just want more responsiveness on substantial points already raised… are we jousting yet?

Good opposition? You’re a newb here my friend and this is a long way from “good opposition against our apologetic muscles”. So far he’s made a bunch of statements and not backed up diddly with anything that will prove his case, as you’ll see from my responses to him.

I, for one, would welcome some substance to his remarks so far (on SS, and not the rest of his irrelevant ranting, which is easily refuted all over this apologetics forum and the main site library, as I have shown. If he wants to discuss or debate the other stuff then he needs to either find a thread already in progress or open a new on on that one topic at which point he’ll get his answers and if he can’t make his case there with facts, then he’ll stand refuted. The rest, at that point, is on him.)

The challenge for him is to prove from the Bible that it teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice. I don’t think he can do it.

 

[toaslan]

I may be new to this thread, but I am by no means new to things Catholic. I doubt this thread is the personal possession of anybody. And who now is making a personal attack? All personal attacks betray weakness of argument–that goes for both you and MountainBoy. Let us all make our reasons lean and strong, like Thomas Aquinas. And what about keeping a sense of humor? Besides, don’t you get there’s an opportunity as well as challenge here?

 

[Nazianzen]

I just want to say I love you guys! Anybody want a cookie?

 

[Church_Militant]

I just want to say I love you guys! Anybody want a cookie?

Yeah! Me! Can I please have two? Breakfast of champions…

 

[Randy_Carson]

What we mean is, while you Roman Catholics are upset that we departed from the Catholic church in the 16th century, we Protestant Catholics are upset that you Roman Catholics departed from the Catholic church much earlier.

Just when you think you have seen every absurdity possible…

“Protestant Catholics”???

Tell me, MB, does being “catholic” mean being “universal” in your mind?

Okay, baptism of infants…should this be done or not done in the “universal” church made up of all believers?

Or is it okay for the “universal” church to teach one thing in one local congregation and the exact opposite in another?

How about the ordination of women?

How about the Lord’s Supper? Is Jesus really present (body, blood, soul and divinity) or not?

Surely, the one, holy catholic and apostolic church as you define it must have some unity on these matters, correct?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[toaslan]

But I think Jeremy is right, guanophore.

It seems like you are resting on a foundation of “logic” here, Jeremy. Unfortunately, matters of faith don’t always respond well to logic. In fact, it is the opposite! Faith may seem like foolishness to the logical. The reason that the Catholic Church is able to interpret the scriptures correctly is divine revelation, not logic. Jesus promised to lead us into all truth, and we believe that by FAITH. It is not build on a foundation of “logic” but of revelation, and faith in that revelation.

He is not building on a foundation of logic. He is saying that it is logical to hold that the Catholic understanding of Scripture has integrity, that our understanding is internally consistent with itself. We always say that our faith is reasonable, as in not opposed to that which is reasonable. Yes, it is mysterious, yes it cannot be fully explained; but yes, it is reasonable–as opposed to laughable/ridiculous. So when our protestant brothers ridicule our veneration of Mary, for example, they make themselves ridiculous. Our veneration of Mary fits with Scripture, has Scriptural basis, and contradicts nothing else in Scripture–thus an internally consistent interpretation of Scripture.

This is not to say that the internally consistent logic of the Catholic take on the Scriptures proves that Catholics are right about Scripture. That would be a different point. We believe we are right based on faith. Catholics just also have an interpretation of Scriptures that has internally consistent logic.

Right, Jeremy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I want to know God. I want to know Christ. I want to know about myself. I want to know how I can get to God. I want to know what is going to happen in the future.

You claim that you do not want a works-based system wherein you must earn your way into heaven. Good. Neither do we. Yet you write, “I want to know how I can get to God.” I thought under your sola fide system, you can do nothing anyway. What is this striving to get to God that you speak of here?

Give me God. Give me Jesus Christ. Give me truth about my sinfulness. Give me the true gospel of justification by faith. And give me the truth about my future.

Perhaps you will have to begin by realizing that there is no "true gospel of justification by faith - if you mean “faith alone” in the usual Protestant sense. It’s an empty promise - a mirage.

And I note that this is the second time you’ve referenced knowing the future. Let this Catholic remind you, my Bible Chrisitan friend, that Jesus told us:

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifea]?

In short, give me the Scriptures, where I can find these truths. I don’t want the corrupt doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church…

The Catholic Church has already given you the scriptures; Luther gave you a condensed version. As for corrupt doctrines and practices, perhaps you might start a separate thread on each one…we’ll be happy to discuss them IN GREAT DETAIL.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Church_Militant]

I may be new to this thread, but I am by no means new to things Catholic. I doubt this thread is the personal possession of anybody. And who now is making a personal attack? All personal attacks betray weakness of argument–that goes for both you and MountainBoy. Let us all make our reasons lean and strong, like Thomas Aquinas. And what about keeping a sense of humor? Besides, don’t you get there’s an opportunity as well as challenge here?

There’s no personal attack there. I don’t do them. I have pointed out that so far he has not offered the least shred of proof that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura, and he has had more than ample opportunity to do so.

If MB11 wants to bring facts to the discussion of SS then I welcome that, but a-C rhetoric and propaganda (not related to SS) stated as if it is factual is a waste of time. If he wishes to debate those things there are already threads and articles that he can get into elsewhere this forum.

I’m not being mean or nasty. But if a guy’s gonna debate…he needs to bring the debate and not empty rhetoric. That’s all I’m pointing out.

I’m all in favor of debating with him, but for cryin’ out loud bring on the debate.

PS. I apologize to toaslan for making it appear that he was not squared away just because he’s new to the forums.

Mea culpa brother.

 

[MountainBoy11]

You are new here, so I will tell you plainly that you will not be permitted to remain on the forum if you wish to make insulting remarks about the faith of Catholics.

You are entitled to your persistence in ignorance, of course, but you are not entitled to persist in abuse as a result of it. .

Thank you, Toaslan, and sorry guanaphore…just doing my best to doximazete as it says in your signature. No wonder there’s not many Protestants around here!

 

[Church_Militant]

No wonder there’s not many Protestants around here!

There are far more here than you realize. Stick around…you’ll see.

 

[toaslan]

MountainBoy, I don’t know your word doximazete. It seems like I’m missing a spot of humor, and I would hate to do that :bounce:

 

[MountainBoy11]

The challenge for him is to prove from the Bible that it teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice. I don’t think he can do it.

And now an attempt at what everyone is so eagerly waiting for.

First of all, I would like to restate our position:

All things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

Dt. 31:9 Moses wrote down this law so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law…Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words foryou, they are your life."

Notice the clear elements of this passage:

1. the word of which Moses spoke was written
2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it
3. In this Word they can find life.

People do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. Can priests, prophets, scribes, pastors, help in this process? Sure. Eph 4:11, Nehemiah 7:8. But we (the people) do not need them. Scriptures are clear and understandable to the ordinary believer. This is why Ezra committed himself to study them (7:10), and Timothy was told to study them (2 Tim 2:15), and all believers are told to desire them 1 Pet 2:1.

And for those who prefer a logical/philosophical approach:

Scripture is the Word of God
The words of God are authoritative.
Scripture is authoritative.

This is what we mean by Sola Scriptura.

 

[MountainBoy11]

MountainBoy, I don’t know your word doximazete. It seems like I’m missing a spot of humor, and I would hate to do that :bounce:

Gwinnevers signature line has the Gr. word doximazete from 1 Thes 5:21, which is one of the strongest words/verses in the NT for doing exactly what I’m doing. It’s a present active imperative, literally meaning “put to the test, examine, prove by testing, approve.” But in his post he’s discouraging me from this. He should probably change his post or change his signature.

 

[toaslan]

Let the dogpile resume! But, MB, while everybody is composing their polite but devastating replies, may I just meekly point out that you have yet to explain why there is no causal connection between this, your interpretation, and the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of protestant denominations .

 

[toaslan]

doximazet…a present active imperative, literally meaning “put to the test, examine, prove by testing, approve.” But in his post he’s discouraging me from this. He should probably change his post or change his signature.

well, you don’t seem too discouraged, fortunately. BTW

 

[MountainBoy11]

When Jesus was confronted by a misinterpreted text by Satan, he did not go running to the church (or Peter for that matter ) to help straighten out Satan’s misinterpretation. Rather, believing in Sola Scriptura as I have just defined it, Jesus correctly quoted an accurately interpreted Scripture.
“It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Mt 4:7.

He does this the whole way through satan’s deceptive trials. could he have called down a legion of angels to massacre the devil? sure. but he didn’t need to. the scripture alone is sufficient.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And now an attempt at what everyone is so eagerly waiting for.

First of all, I would like to restate our position:

All things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

Catholics might agree with the first part of your statement, but not the latter. If everything is SO CLEAR, then why do XX,000 Protestant denominations all claim to be following the “Bible Alone” yet disagreeing on so many doctrines.

The Bible may be materially sufficient, but not formally sufficicient.

{quote]Dt. 31:9 Moses wrote down this law so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law…Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words foryou, they are your life."

Notice the clear elements of this passage:

1. the word of which Moses spoke was written
2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it
3. In this Word they can find life.

People do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. Can priests, prophets, scribes, pastors, help in this process? Sure. Eph 4:11, Nehemiah 7:8. But we (the people) do not need them. Scriptures are clear and understandable to the ordinary believer. This is why Ezra committed himself to study them (7:10), and Timothy was told to study them (2 Tim 2:15), and all believers are told to desire them 1 Pet 2:1.

And for those who prefer a logical/philosophical approach:

Scripture is the Word of God
The words of God are authoritative.
Scripture is authoritative.

This is what we mean by Sola Scriptura.The Jews had the following:

1. The Law
2. The oral tradition (passed down by first by Moses and later by other teachers)
3. Moses himself as judge (acting in the manner of the Magisterium) followed by Joshua son of Nun, etc.

Scripture, Tradition, Interpreter.

Sounds pretty “Catholic” to me.