The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[ahimsaman72]

Scott Waddell:

No, they form a body of a cumulative argument. Please proove your assertion that there is some kind of mix up of priorities.

Scott

I would rather read a letter from Peter written almost 2000 years ago to get his doctrine than look to a man in present day to present doctrine. Therefore, Scripture is the most authoritative among all of those. When tradition then doesn’t match up with the Scriptures then “Houston, we have a problem”. That’s the briefest answer I can give to such an open-ended subject.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

ahimsaman72:

I would rather read a letter from Peter written almost 2000 years ago to get his doctrine than look to a man in present day to present doctrine. Therefore, Scripture is the most authoritative among all of those. When tradition then doesn’t match up with the Scriptures then “Houston, we have a problem”. That’s the briefest answer I can give to such an open-ended subject.

Every one of Catholic traditions is harmonious with Scripture. So far, your better-than-Catholics case is your completely arbitrary decision that the letter of Peter belongs in Scripture in the first place. No wonder you are down on a “man in present day”. He’s competion for your claim to be Superpope.

Scott

 

[hlgomez]

When tradition then doesn’t match up with the Scriptures then “Houston, we have a problem”. That’s the briefest answer I can give to such an open-ended subject.

Of course, when tradition contradicts Scripture, then Houston there is really a problem. However, the Traditions of the Church does not go against Scripture. Scripture AND Tradition form one Deposit of Faith handed down by the apostles to their successors–this is the Catholic Faith. It’s not Scripture or Tradition, but both. If you use only Scripture–there is going to be a problem. What happens when we only use Scripture? The result is–splintering of the Body of Christ because of the various and often contradicting interpretations of Scripture. That’s what we see in this whole sola Scriptura Luther-made tradition.

John the apostle attested to the fact that “there are many things that Jesus did but were not recorded in his Gospel.” St. Paul instructed to* “hold fast to the traditions that were taught, either by writing or word of mouth.” *

Pio

 

[ahimsaman72]

Scott Waddell:

Every one of Catholic traditions is harmonious with Scripture. So far, your better-than-Catholics case is your completely arbitrary decision that the letter of Peter belongs in Scripture in the first place. No wonder you are down on a “man in present day”. He’s competion for your claim to be Superpope.

Scott

I simply would have to disagree on “every one of catholic traditions is harmonious with scripture”. Primacy of Peter, Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary are but a few. They are simply not there. You, of course, would argue they are. We could haggle all day over it. Would it make a difference? Not at this point.

Now, I’ve heard of Superman, but never Superpope. Listen, I think John Paul II is a great person, full of the Holy Spirit, just as I am. He seems to be such a sweet spirit and very loving indeed. I appreciate him, but not his office.

Actually, I don’t ever speak infallibly, because I’m a fallible person. I don’t believe you can be fallible and speak infallibly. When I speak what I believe is truth it is to be assumed by the audience that this is simply my belief, not binding on you or anyone else. Romans 8:16 declares, “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God”. When Paul wrote this, it is clear he was speaking to Roman Christians. I have no higher authority than the Holy Spirit when it comes to my faith. I do not trust in any man, nor can I. Psalms 118:8 says also, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” I shall put no trust in any man.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

Of course, when tradition contradicts Scripture, then Houston there is really a problem. However, the Traditions of the Church does not go against Scripture. Scripture AND Tradition form one Deposit of Faith handed down by the apostles to their successors–this is the Catholic Faith. It’s not Scripture or Tradition, but both. If you use only Scripture–there is going to be a problem. What happens when we only use Scripture? The result is–splintering of the Body of Christ because of the various and often contradicting interpretations of Scripture. That’s what we see in this whole sola Scriptura Luther-made tradition.

John the apostle attested to the fact that “there are many things that Jesus did but were not recorded in his Gospel.” St. Paul instructed to* “hold fast to the traditions that were taught, either by writing or word of mouth.” *

Pio

There is no splintering of the body of Christ because of the “various and contradicting interpretations of Scripture”. The body of Christ cannot be splintered any more than you can say that ice is not water. Same substance, different forms. As I have said on another post, interpretation is done by you, me and everyone else.

While you are reading this post, you are interpreting what I am saying to you. When you read a book, watch tv, talk with someone you take all stimuli in and interpret it in your head. There is nothing wrong with interpretation. It’s the human behind the interpretation that messes it all up.

Sola Scriptura is only part of the protestant faith. There is also sola gratia and sola fide. They all complement one another. Luther and Calvin have explained far better than I on this issue. My thoughts are simply that - my thoughts. I will concede that I am unlearned in many respects.

Hope this helps.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

ahimsaman72:

I simply would have to disagree on “every one of catholic traditions is harmonious with scripture”. Primacy of Peter, Immaculate Conception of Mary and Assumption of Mary are but a few. They are simply not there. You, of course, would argue they are. We could haggle all day over it. Would it make a difference? Not at this point.

No but it is worth talking about. You switched gears on me. You went from suggesting that Church traditions contradict Scripture to saying they are not even there at all. It makes a difference because I said they are harmonious, meaning they don’t contradict Scripture. You are now in a mode that suggests all Traditions must appear whole, explicit, or often in the Bible (again, not found in Scripture and plenty to the contrary). Ok, but this is going to do murder to your Bible alone position, as well as chop off any basis for the authenticity of which books belong in it. This is special pleading.

Actually, I don’t ever speak infallibly, because I’m a fallible person. I don’t believe you can be fallible and speak infallibly. When I speak what I believe is truth it is to be assumed by the audience that this is simply my belief, not binding on you or anyone else. Romans 8:16 declares, “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God”. When Paul wrote this, it is clear he was speaking to Roman Christians. I have no higher authority than the Holy Spirit when it comes to my faith. I do not trust in any man, nor can I. Psalms 118:8 says also, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” I shall put no trust in any man.

And therein lies your problem: you have appealed to theological relativism. The fact is you have put faith in a man–yourself and your private judgement (which we have no basis for believing it is the Holy Spirit) prevailing over Scripture. It’s solipsistic.

Scott

 

[ahimsaman72]

Scott Waddell:

No but it is worth talking about. You switched gears on me. You went from suggesting that Church traditions contradict Scripture to saying they are not even there at all. It makes a difference because I said they are harmonious, meaning they don’t contradict Scripture. You are now in a mode that all Traditions must appear whole, explicit, or often in the Bible. Ok, but this is going to do murder to your Bible alone position, as well as chop off any basis for the authenticity of which books belong in it. This is special pleading.

And therein lies your problem: you have appealed to theological relativism. The fact is you have put faith in a man–yourself and your private judgement (which we have no basis for believing it is the Holy Spirit) prevailing over Scripture. It’s solipsistic.

Scott

Not worth speaking about when it gets nowhere and terms of endearment such as “superpope” begin flying around. No sir.

“theological relativism”, “solipsistic”. You use big words my friend. Let me get simple (I already am). I have faith in God, not myself. I believe there is a person outside of me who created me and my environment (I can tell this by looking up at the sky or looking at a tree, i.e. natural revelation) I believe He sent His Son, Jesus Christ to pay a penalty that I could not. (I heard this preached by my parents and ministers). I accept Him as only I can, with child-like faith and sincerity. I trust in Him alone and I use the Scriptures to strengthen the faith I already have. You are deluding yourself if you are saying that you do not use private judgement. You make private judgements all the time. You say, “that was a terrible movie”, or “I like this ice cream”. Aren’t those private judgements?

As for “faith in a man - yourself”, I don’t know what to tell you. God made me - gave me a brain, feelings, conscience. I believe He would want me to use them. If that is “faith in myself”, then I guess I am guilty as charged.

At this point, I would steer you towards great thinkers and theologians who have an extensive knowledge of these subjects. I’m afraid that I can’t offer you much more. I would be glad to post some links for ya.

Blessings to you…it’s getting too hot in here for me!

 

[mayra_hart]

the verse i always used to quote on the sufficiency of scripture actually reinforces the catholic view: “all scripture is god-breathed and isusefulforteaching,rebuking,correcting and training inrightneousness”.(2tim3:16). the bible is useful for all these,but this verse certainly never promotes scripture as the final authority for our faith. this is why i said what i said in my previous letter:“toparaphrase protestants,only those doctrines taught in the bible are to be trusted for our theology.this very statement,however is self destructive! the simple fact is that(accordining to your own criteria this statement cannot be trusted,because is not taught in the bible. the protestant view of the bible is unbiblical.your view of the scripture is unscriptural” i have concluded that,concerning scriptural authority, the bible teaches the opposite of what protestant are trying to say it teaches. iam quoting this from a book wrote by a fundamentalist named david currie.:bowdown: bless you all

 

[p90]

hlgomez:

John the apostle attested to the fact that “there are many things that Jesus did but were not recorded in his Gospel.”

Where may I read of what Jesus did outside of the Scriptures? I am interested to know so that I may augment my beliefs accordingly.

~Matt

 

[mayra_hart]

the fact that there was a tremendous amount of jesus’ life and teaching that was never written down cannot be denied.“jesus did many things as well. if everyone one of them were written down,i supposed that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”(jn21:25). the writer of any given book of the new testament chose, under inspiration,from the available data in order to fit the purpose of his letter or book. santa maria madre de dios ruega por nosotros.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Matt and Ahimsaman,

Catholics believes that the Catholic Church has continued the belief and practice of the apostles. For example I believe that our belief in the true Body of Jesus and communion and our practice of mass are learned from the apostolic Church.

2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

1 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.

2 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.

There is no question that Scripture makes it clear that there are teachings outside of Scripture. Therefore Scripture makes it clear that it does not contain all the truths of faith. Yes, St Paul says that Scripture equips one for every good work. Showing from Scripture that Scripture itself does not contain all the teachings is a good work.

Therefore, one can never use Scripture alone to understand the fullness of the Christian faith. This is made clear from Scripture itself.

So for a person to say that their Church teaches the truth and they base all their beliefs and practice only on Scripture is clearly wrong.

As far as what these traditions, letters, and oral teachings are, Catholics believe that the Catholic Church has carried on these teachings and I gave the Eucharist and mass as examples. This is a matter of faith just as belief in Jesus is a matter of faith.

If people do not believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness that Scripture refers to, then you do not share the same faith. However, you do still are left with the question of what Church does have the fullness that Scripture makes clear exists:

remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,

hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught

So Matt and Ahimsaman, I ask you, what Church has carried on these teachings, traditions, and beliefs that St. Paul refers to? What Church is this?

Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Also, when the Catholic Church agreed on the Scriptures that comprise the New Testamant for the purposes of the Catholic Church, it was never intended or considered that the New Testamant would contain all the truths of the faith.

This idea that Scripture contains all the turths of the faith is nothing more than a myth, an error made up by men.

1 Timothy 4:6-7 If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed. Avoid profane and silly myths.

So you see, the idea that a Church can know the truth about Jesus from the Scriptures without the Church is a myth that St. Paul warned about.

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

So Matt and Ahimsaman, I ask you, what Church has carried on these teachings, traditions, and beliefs that St. Paul refers to? What Church is this?

Before I can answer that question, how do I verify if these teachings outside of the Scriptures have been faithfullly kept by a particular denomination? What method do I use to test, for example, the Mass to see if it faithfully represents the traditions outside of the Scriptures?

~Matt

 

[fulloftruth]

ahimsaman72

The “greedy pastors” comment is true to an extent. But then, like priests who have sexually abused children, you can’t say all priests are sexual abusers.

The salvation message is proclaimed throughout Scripture and is sufficient for salvation. That’s where our roads would fork. We both claim authority, only you claim it is through one apostle, whereas I claim it is solely through the Master of the apostle apart from any man.

Your whole reasoning and theology are based on ONE Scripture, Matt. 16:18. Out of the whole Bible, you have picked one verse and built an empire out of it. Read the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke. There is little evidence of the primacy of Peter.

In fact, while reading through the first 12 chapters of Acts of the Apostles last night, I found several distinct things.

First of all the Priest molestation analogy is completely off topic. No priest molested any children because of his ability to interpret Scripture in his own way. Thats the topic, I wasn’t bringing up the greedy pastor bit to say you have sinners and we don’t. I was making a point about the liberal interpretations that have come from Sola Scriptura. Nice try. Thats the beauty of the Catholic Church. We have a Holy Priesthood, that is endowed with the powers that Christ gave the First Apostles. And to be a Priest is a call to humilty and charity and piety. You don’t make any money as a priest.

I see you take issue with me using one verse to back up the construction of the Church. How many verses did it take God to make man. How many verses should God have used, seeings how you think you know better that he on what the world needs as far as an authority. I think it should be taken into account who said it and what was said. He said He was going to start His Church with Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom, and said it would last until the end of time. You as a Protestant have chosen to leave that church, with the rest of the “reformers,” Martin Luther and so on. Remember, he was a Catholic priest. There was only one Apostolic Church for 1500 years.What is so puzzling about that verse. Why the confusion. Protestants just do not like what the true church stands for, just like the Jews that crucified Christ, they could not see the truth as it stood in front of them. If you could only relax your peripheral objections, and see the core of what the Catholic Church teaches. Are there any moral teachings that you disagree with the Church on.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Matt,

p90:

Before I can answer that question, how do I verify if these teachings outside of the Scriptures have been faithfullly kept by a particular denomination? What method do I use to test, for example, the Mass to see if it faithfully represents the traditions outside of the Scriptures?

I would say you can examine Scripture and the Churches themselves to give you clues to the apostolic Church.

Some clues from Scripture:

• The importance of communion in worship. St. Paul refers to this in Scripture multiple times and it gives a clue that communion is central when worshippers gather.
• The mention of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The apostolic Church would likely continue this.

Some clues from the Church itself:

• The Catholic Church claims to be apostolic and this is in our creed at every mass. The Church that knows the importance of carrying on the apostolic beliefs and practices is authentic.
• The Church that stands firm on teachings when others may soften (e.g. contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, female clergy, the reality of communion)
• The Church that can truly inspire and bring light to the soul. For example, the experience of mass and the Church’s amazing wisdom of the connections between Scriptures from the Old Testament, St. Paul’s letters, and the gospels in the readings at mass.
• The Church that brings the peace of Jesus to its members so that they can overcome the stresses of everyday life.

Almost all Christians celebrate Christmas. The word Christmas comes from the “Mass of Christ”.

Greg

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

I would say you can examine Scripture and the Churches themselves to give you clues to the apostolic Church.

If this is the test that is to be used, my answer to your original question would have to be that there isn’t a church that follows the extra-Scriptural word of God today. Those churches that do follow the Scriptures don’t know of any words from God outside of them, and those that claim it are not following the Scriptures to begin with.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Those churches that do follow the Scriptures don’t know of any words from God outside of them, and those that claim it are not following the Scriptures to begin with.

Then where is the spoken word in your Church?

2 Thess 2:15 hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter

Catholics say Sacred Tradition is the oral traditions referred to in Scripture. Where is it in your Church?

Keep in mind:
Jn 21:25 not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word won’t

Scripture makes no distinction between the oral word and written word. Where is the oral word Scripture tells us to hold fast to?

There is a difference between extra-biblical like the book of Mormon and Sacred Tradition which is the oral tradition of the Church. But if Catholics are wrong, if Sacred Tradition is not the oral tradition referred to in Scripture, where is the oral tradition, and where in the Bible does it tell you this?

 

[p90]

MariaG:

But if Catholics are wrong, if Sacred Tradition is not the oral tradition referred to in Scripture, where is the oral tradition, and where in the Bible does it tell you this?

That oral tradition was either written down in the New Testament itself or has simply gone out of existence. The answer to the second part of your question is that the Bible doesn’t.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

posted by p90

That oral tradition was either written down in the New Testament itself or has simply gone out of existence. The answer to the second part of your question is that the Bible doesn’t.

But Matt, Scripture tells us that not everything has been written down, and the God’s word will never cease. But Scripture also tells us to hold fast to those oral traditions as well.

Do you see where that leaves you? With Scripture telling you to follow the written and oral but you no longer have an oral tradition in your church to follow. We know it has to be somewhere because Scripture tells us that His word will never cease. We know it hasn’t all been written down because Scripture also tells us this.

Is what you are doing is choosing to not follow Scripture because you don’t like where it leads you? Scripture is clear. Hold fast to traditions oral or letter. Find out what happened to the oral tradition. Catholics say we know where it is. So whose church is more Biblical? The one that follows an oral tradition as well as a written one or one that only looks to the written?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[p90]

MariaG:

Find out what happened to the oral tradition. Catholics say we know where it is. So whose church is more Biblical? The one that follows an oral tradition as well as a written one or one that only looks to the written?

If that oral tradition existed today, it would be the church that followed both. Since I have applied the test of Scripture against Catholicism in the past and found the church to be wanting, according to the standard set by Greg, I should reject Catholicism as faithfully following the Word of God outside of Scripture.

I have a question, Can you produce for me a teaching of Jesus Christ or of Paul (the latter being traceable to the New Testament church to which he wrote 2 Thessalonians) that exists independently of the written record? If you can, I would be much more open to the existence of an oral tradition handed down.

~Matt