Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[justasking4]

MarcoPolo;3307402]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets see if i understand you. Are you saying that if you want to know what a particular verse or passage means you could go to some volume somewhere to find your answer?

MarcoPolo
You sure could. Pickup a Catechism. There will probably be several citations of Scripture at the bottom of every page. Or read a dogmatic proclamation that uses Scripture to explain something.

Isn’t it true that the catechism is not a commentary of the scriptures but an explanation of the doctrines and practices of the catholic church? Catholics don’t use it if they want to know what a praticular verse means in scripture do they?

You can find the Church using Scripture in all kinds of authoritative documents and drawing from passages a certain meaning.

But there is no “authoritative” verse by verse book that tells you what each verse or passage means in scripture. Correct?

 

[guanophore]

You give no proof for your assertion here. Anyone can say this but that doesn’t make it true.

Think about this, ja4. Jesus is the author of the Scripture. He understood and taught His apostles how to understand and interpret the OT. All of the OT was found fulfilled in Him. He passed this fullness on to His apostles. Why would you consider that the Jews, who misunderstood the messianic prophesies, would understant the Holy Writings better than Christians?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Isn’t it true that the catechism is not a commentary of the scriptures but an explanation of the doctrines and practices of the catholic church? Catholics don’t use it if they want to know what a praticular verse means in scripture do they?

But there is no “authoritative” verse by verse book that tells you what each verse or passage means in scripture. Correct?

I use it to learn what verses in Scripture mean. Why not? For example, paragraph #1031 of the Catechism says 1 Cor 3:15 is a reference to a purgatory after death.

No, I am not aware of some authoritative Bible commentary index on what “each verse” means. For one reason, we have by no means exhausted the meaning of each verse. Secondly, we have not exhausted the deeper, spiritual senses of some of the verses we already do have an understanding of. For three, the Church makes authoritative declarations only when God has so moved it to do. The Church cannot just teach infallibly when it wants to, which is what it sounds like what you demand.

As time goes on, the Church will understand more and more verses and understand more doctrines through them. Don’t forget, Jesus didn’t let the blind man see all at once. First He let him see some, and then as a second gift, the man was able to see more. (Mk 8:22-25)

 

[guanophore]

I used him as an example to show that the claim the HS would prevent error in the catholic church to be false.

Clearly you are misunderstanding the promise. Jesus never promised that individuals would not err. What He promised is that the Apostles would be led into all truth. I asked you this in another thread, but you did not answer. To whom do you believe this promise was made?

John 16:13-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

You must assume without any evidence the that the bishops after the apostles were to enjoy “protection” of the Holy Spirit since the Scriptures never teach such a doctrine.

On the contrary, the passing on of the gospel message entrusted to the apostles is documented very well in the New Testament and the Early Fathers. Let me ask you this. What if that protection actually existed? How might that change your faith practice?

In fact the scriptures declare that there will be false teachers who will come into the midst itself. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example. We know even from church history that Pope Honarius was declared a hereitc.

This is a perfect example of how the HS protects the Church. Individual members who err can be recognized and dealt with, because there is an infallible authority that protects the Truth.

Where do you get this from?

The Church determined which of the documents floating around were inspired, and belonged in the canon. This was done by Apostolic Teaching and Sacred Tradition. It was done by the Bishops whe replaced the Apostles in the Succession. That is the authority by which you have your NT.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t blame you for trying to dismiss this pope since as you well know it demonstrates that the claim you made cannot be sustained by history…

ja4, you do blame Catholics for just about everything that seems to bother you about the Church. All you are being asked to do at this point is to follow the forum rules. If you want to discuss a topic other than the one on the thread, start a new thread. You are not exempt from the forum rules, as you seem to think. If you have no respect for Catholics, or for the Catholic Answers Forum, as least for the sake of bearing the name you claim of “christian” follow the authority that is appointed over you in this matter.

 

[guanophore]

Here is what i beleive Sola Scriptura is:
Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

The scripture is God-breathed, and therefore, inerrant. However, Scripture (words on a page) have no power in themselves to act or decide. For that reason, they cannot be “infallible” or create a rule. This must be done by people. What most Sola Scripturists do not seem to know about themselves is that they have adopted tradition and rule, and it does come from outside scripture.

 

[Brother_John]

When discussing religion with non-Catholic friends, I usually state something to the effect that the Bible is the core of most Protestant religions, while for the Catholics it is more of an accessory…and that the core of our faith is the Church and the Celebration of the Eucharist.

You should see the look on their face when I say “accessory”.

 

[guanophore]

You won’t find such a statement in the Scriptures per se but the meaning is derived from the nature of the Scriptures themselves as being inspired-inerrant. From that, the definition follows.

Great

The same method which is used to define the immaculate conception. Glad we are using similar methods to determine Divine Revelation!

If it is true that the “has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ” why has it interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? There are thousands of other verses that have not been interpreted then. This means that over 99% of the scriptures for catholics has no “authentic interpretation”. This also means any catholic cannot know with any certainty what a particular verse or passage means.

There is no need. We have the Teachings of Jesus passed on to us by the Apostles, and the scriptures confirm these teachings. This statement is bearing false witness again, ja4. Catholics do have authentic interpretation, within the Teachings of the Church. So please speak for yourself, since YOU are the one who does not have authentic interpretation, because you reject the Apostolic Succession.

Lets see if i understand you. Are you saying that if you want to know what a particular verse or passage means you could go to some volume somewhere to find your answer? If that is the case, who in the catholic church would or could do this?

Catholics do not interpret verses peicemeal like fundamentalists do. We read scripture as a whole, and look at it in the light of Jesus’ teachings. Of course it is possible to consult commentaries and other reference works, but the primary Guide is the Teaching of Jesus. Did you know that the NT did not have “verses”? Did you know it was Catholics who added chapters and verses?

 

[Tomster]

I don’t blame you for trying to dismiss this pope since as you well know it demonstrates that the claim you made cannot be sustained by history…

www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it true that the catechism is not a commentary of the scriptures but an explanation of the doctrines and practices of the catholic church? Catholics don’t use it if they want to know what a praticular verse means in scripture do they?

It presents the Teachings of Jesus Christ, and gives references. Catholics don’t read scripture in this manner, “to know what a particular verse means”. Rather, scripture is read to clarify the Teachings that have been received. This is why Scripture is written, and how it should be used. Fundamentalists have fallen into this “interpret particular verse” method because they have rejected the Apostolic Succession.

But there is no “authoritative” verse by verse book that tells you what each verse or passage means in scripture. Correct?

This would be a wrong use of both the Authority Jesus appointed, and the Scriptures which are God-breathed.

 

[Tomster]

ja4, you do blame Catholics for just about everything that seems to bother you about the Church. All you are being asked to do at this point is to follow the forum rules. If you want to discuss a topic other than the one on the thread, start a new thread. You are not exempt from the forum rules, as you seem to think. If you have no respect for Catholics, or for the Catholic Answers Forum, as least for the sake of bearing the name you claim of “christian” follow the authority that is appointed over you in this matter.

" . . . follow the AUTHORITY that is appointed over you in this matter."

I suppose it’s all in how ja4 defines authority.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Sola Scriptura is a very confusing term. As I understand it, it does not state that Scripture is the only source of truth, but it is the primary source. Except for the unfortunate “fundamentalist movement,” which was a reaction to the liberalization of society, (T)radition is still held in high regard to Protestants. If this were not so, we would not be able to use the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, etc. Protestants recognize that the use of Tradition in the Council of Nicea was critical in shutting down the Arian heresy. It is the source of complex doctrines.

The water gets muddy when questions are asked about just how much tradition is trustworthy. Protestants would argue that the Catholic Church is capable of straying, to its own admission. Otherwise, great Catholic reformers such as Desiderius Erasmus would never have risen up and the Counter-Reformation would not have been necessary. So, we would say that Tradition still has a place in Sola Scriptura, but the way it is used (or abused) can sometimes be questioned.

This is the problem Jessie. You are a lot more informed and more intelligent that the regular run of the mill fundamentalists that embrace this topic. It is admirable that you admit that Protestants embrace Tradition since that is in fact a truth that many won’t even admit to while they sit in church on Sunday rather than on the sabbath as scripture specifies. The truth also is that scripture had to quite a degree embodied some tradition into it - not every word and sentence in there is “the word of God” with respect to spiritual truths but rather some traditions and even complaints about how some of the churches and disciples were drifting and quarreling. Some would subscribe human weaknesses mentioned in the bible as instruction from God that we must be weak - that is how “unfortunate” fundamentalism has become. It is also admirable that you are attempting to carve out a niche of “reasonableness” for your fellow Protestants by essentially proposing a compromise on the doctrine of sola scriptura.

But the fundamental problem is with no single authority anywhere in protestantism we have no way of even defining concretely what is “sola scriptura”. So in your reasonableness you are more Catholic than your are Protestant (and frankly should convert ) since the impression most Catholics have is that as best we can tell 90% or more of Protestants embrace a scripture only take on their faith and a bible that teaches itself with no Tradition framing a social and spiritual context.

So I think this thread is doomed to focus on the majority view here as to “what” sola scriptura is. A hybridized model of sola sciptura would find little advocacy here among fellow protestants and it would render ambiguous what we were discussing since Catholics would be forced to eventually fall back on “without authoritative teaching Tradition can not be understood”. This whole topic area centers on Authority and that is the key factor that separates Protestantism from Catholicism since Catholics will never accept that a book is an authority that determines their eternal future - it is God working through His Church and Her sacraments and our cooperation with the grace. It is most definitely not an inanimate book that can’t be used as a do-it-yourself “how to” salvation.

James

 

[Tomster]

Very good, Namesake; That’s exactly right. Always! That’s exactly our argument. Always - ever since the days of the Apostles.

The thing that bothers me about Sola Scripture it that it is unscriptural.

Totally unscriptural !

 

[CentralFLJames]

I can take this statement of yours and apply it to protestants. You as a catholic cannot understand protestant doctrines. I suspect i could find a number of protestant scholars and pastors that do indeed understand Jewish insights.

We have to admit you got us here JA4. But now ask yourself “can Protestants themselves understand and explain Protestant doctrines”? If so, then how do you explain the 30,000 or so different Protestant sects and why they can’t merge into one unified common understanding? From an outsider looking in it sure looks like the only thing any protestant could understand as common about Protestant doctrines is that they all hold as common an abhorrence for unity, authority, “protest” and anything that is anti-Catholic? Do you have a different understanding you’d care to share?

James

 

[Tomster]

We have to admit you got us here JA4. But now ask yourself “can Protestants themselves understand and explain Protestant doctrines”? If so, then how do you explain the 30,000 or so different Protestant sects and why they can’t merge into one unified common understanding? From an outsider looking in it sure looks like the only thing any protestant could understand as common about Protestant doctrines is that they all hold as common an abhorrence for unity, authority, “protest” and anything that is anti-Catholic? Do you have a different understanding you’d care to share

James

If I may add a few more questions?

Is it recorded anywhere in Holy Scripture that the right to read the Bible is the greatest privilege enjoyed by Christians? “Master,” said the rich young man, “what must I do to be saved?” Was he told to read the Bible? “Which is the first commandment in the law?” asked the Pharisees. Was the reply “Read the Bible”? In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord taught His disciples the new Law; did He say, “Blessed are those that read the Bible”? When He founded His Church did He say that the Scriptures were the rock? Did He charge the Apostles to go forth in all the world and distribute Bibles? Is there in the Bible itself a word as to the necessity of reading it?

 

[CentralFLJames]

If it is true that the “has been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises its authority in the name of Jesus Christ” why has it interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures? There are thousands of other verses that have not been interpreted then. This means that over 99% of the scriptures for catholics has no “authentic interpretation”. This also means any catholic cannot know with any certainty what a particular verse or passage means.

Are you saying here that you have infallible interpreted 100% of the bible and are volunteering to lend a hand?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

But there is no “authoritative” verse by verse book that tells you what each verse or passage means in scripture. Correct?

Do you suppose in the limit of your circuitous reasoning that if there was such a book that The Church would need yet another self-help book to teach how to interpret the teaching and so on ad-nauseum? At some point the absurdity of trying to find a pearl through recursively peeling away the onion leaves you with nothing but tears. At some point you have to accept the fact that there is such a thing as a common semantic and a common sense and not a Babel approach to reaching up to heaven. Common sense should tell you that the author of the book is the best person to go to ask what He meant. The Church in communuon with Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. Come to The Church to learn the truth.

James

 

[Tomster]

Are you saying here that you have infallible interpreted 100% of the bible and are volunteering to lend a hand?

James

Protestants attempt to prove from the Bible the doctrine that every Christian ought to find his faith by searching the Scriptures. They maintain that Christ said to everyone, “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), and that the Apostles would have approved had any man, after hearing them preach, examined the Old Testament (the New Testament had not been canonized as yet) to see if their doctrine was in accord with it (Acts 17:11). They say, further, that the words of Christ and His Apostles and prophets give light unto the simple and are “living and effectual . . . reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit” (Hebrews 4:12).

With regards to the words: “Search the Scriptures” they have had a disastrous effect upon the world. If Christ addressed them to his disciples, did He mean that every man, woman and child ought to read and interpret the Bible? If we examine the passage in which they occur, and consider their context in St. John’s Gospel, we will see that our Lord did not address these words to His disciples, far less to all men universally as some Protestants allege, but only to the unbelieving Pharisees.

 

[CentralFLJames]

When discussing religion with non-Catholic friends, I usually state something to the effect that the Bible is the core of most Protestant religions, while for the Catholics it is more of an accessory…and that the core of our faith is the Church and the Celebration of the Eucharist.

You should see the look on their face when I say “accessory”.

I don’t think most of our Protestant friends here have any doubt what our Catholic views are on The Bible vs Tradition. What they have a problem with is being unable to sway us from our teaching to accept their foreign teaching and private interpretation. It is not a matter of wanting to “save us” from ourselves. What disturbs them is that they know they could be wrong and inwardly know they really are - but pride and their very perception of self identity prevents them from admitting it. They are bothered that they can not shake our faith. The perseverance in coming each day to a Catholic Forum not to learn but to try to get us to change implies that they are not confident in their own faith or they would simply state that we are wrong and leave. Eventually the Holy Spirit will convert a few here to Catholicism since the truth eventually will push aside the largely false teaching of Protestantism that they either taught themselves or which was forced on them at an impressionable age by some anti-Catholic teacher.

James

 

[Brother_John]

I don’t think most of our Protestant friends here have any doubt what our Catholic views are on The Bible vs Tradition. What they have a problem with is being unable to sway us from our teaching to accept their foreign teaching and private interpretation. It is not a matter of wanting to “save us” from ourselves. What disturbs them is that they know they could be wrong and inwardly know they really are - but pride and their very perception of self identity prevents them from admitting it. They are bothered that they can not shake our faith. The perseverance in coming each day to a Catholic Forum not to learn but to try to get us to change implies that they are not confident in their own faith or they would simply state that we are wrong and leave. Eventually the Holy Spirit will convert a few here to Catholicism since the truth eventually will push aside the largely false teaching of Protestantism that they either taught themselves or which was forced on them at an impressionable age by some anti-Catholic teacher.

James

Great commentary :tiphat:

I do a weekly Bible study with a non-denominational friend. We try to stay focused on our shared beliefs rather than focusing on our differences…yet, issues regarding Catholicism vs Non-Denominational beliefs keep creeping in.

Sometimes it clearly makes him nervous. He is a fallen away member of the Church of Christ. His internal struggles are clearly there.