What are "The Essentials"?

[snarflemike]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

 

[Link0126]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

Trinity
Faith alone
Sola scriptura
Symbolic communion

But they don’t get it from reading the Bible, they get it from their church tradition.

 

[triumphguy]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

Whatever they choose to focus on. Picking up snakes?

John chapter 6 seems to be entirely overlooked in the protestant tradition.

 

[benjohnson]

Symbolic communion

If anything, Scripture is most clear that the bread and wine are truly Jesus’s body and blood. In my opinion, anybody who has a Bible should understand the clarity of Jesus’s sacrifice.

…

If your question is about Lutheran Sola Scriptura, if I remember correctly, it leads to every Catholic teaching except two: Papal Infallibility and paid access to the Treasury of Merit.

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

One could add that Lutheran Sola Scriptura has led Lutherans to a slightly different understanding of the Justification and the Real Presence, but upon carful understanding their conclusions are very close to Catholic teaching. We also have a different understanding on what Apostolic means, but I think that more out of necessity rather than any better understanding.

 

[joshrp]

It’s called a Swiss Cheese Bible

 

[AbideWithMe]

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

Yes.

 

[Samuel63]

They will get without fail, their own interpretation of the meaning of what is written in the bible.

 

[Link0126]

If anything, Scripture is most clear that the bread and wine are truly Jesus’s body and blood. In my opinion, anybody who has a Bible should understand the clarity of Jesus’s sacrifice.

…

If your question is about Lutheran Sola Scriptura, if I remember correctly, it leads to every Catholic teaching except two: Papal Infallibility and paid access to the Treasury of Merit.

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

One could add that Lutheran Sola Scriptura has led Lutherans to a slightly different understanding of the Justification and the Real Presence, but upon carful understanding their conclusions are very close to Catholic teaching. We also have a different understanding on what Apostolic means, but I think that more out of necessity rather than any better understanding.

Yes, I believe the Bible is clear about the body and blood as well, but that is matter of our interpretation. That’s why I’m saying they don’t get these things from the Bible per say they get them from their church tradition. Lutherans are more connected to tradition they other protestants.

Ultimately, the Bible has to be interpreted and it’s going to be interpreted within whatever tradition or church doctrine your part of. That’s why the whole premise of Sola Scriptura has wrecked havoc on the Body of Christ. It served as a justification to throw out Catholic tradition but ultimately it only replaced that with other interpretation.

 

[Link0126]

Yes.

Every denomination is able to align their beliefs with the Bible, well, all of the major protestant denominations at least. Yet, they all disagree on many doctrines. Obviously, we need something else.

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

Where in Scripture is this written?

 

[Sixpence]

If one goes by sola scriptura, what are the essential beliefs that every “believer” will discover, without fail, in the bible?

A few of them are: the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, and monotheism.

If you don’t believe in SS, are you still able to track these particular things from the Bible to a discovery of essential beliefs?

 

[kempo1]

First corinthians chapter 11pretty much covers tradition and very expliciately covers the lords body and blood oh and back up to chapter 10 verses 14-22 covers real presence

 

[snarflemike]

A few of them are: the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, and monotheism.

I don’t think the deity of Christ is at all a universal belief of all those who believe the bible is true. The others, AFAIK, are pretty much universal.

If you don’t believe in SS, are you still able to track these particular things from the Bible to a discovery of essential beliefs?

Not sure what the question is here.

 

[Sixpence]

I don’t think the deity of Christ is at all a universal belief of all those who believe the bible is true. The others, AFAIK, are pretty much universal.

That’s a pretty general group of people. Muslims, for example, believe the Bible is true and that Jesus was a prophet. But they also have this book called the Koran, so yeah.

I assumed you would limit the field to those who practice SS. If you can add whatever you want to that from whatever prophet or religious leader, you can easily claim to believe the Bible is true while effectively demoting it to the point where your bonus prophecy trumps whatever it contradicts. And then you can believe anything.

Which is one of the main ideas behind sola scriptura. Not in the sense that lesser authority is excluded, but in the sense that appropriate limits are in place when Scripture is the highest authority.

Not sure what the question is here.

Basically asking if Catholics can confirm that a SS approach to the Bible gives them sufficient material for them to know that beliefs like monotheism and the resurrection of Jesus are essential to Christianity.

I did phrase it awkwardly, though. I was trying to ask if SS unbelievers can see the same dots that SS people are connecting here.

 

[snarflemike]

That’s a pretty general group of people. Muslims, for example, believe the Bible is true and that Jesus was a prophet. But they also have this book called the Koran, so yeah.

Muslims -don’t- believe the bible is true. They believe it is corrupted.

I assumed you would limit the field to those who practice SS. If you can add whatever you want to that from whatever prophet or religious leader, you can easily claim to believe the Bible is true while effectively demoting it to the point where your bonus prophecy trumps whatever it contradicts. And then you can believe anything.

Which is one of the main ideas behind sola scriptura. Not in the sense that lesser authority is excluded, but in the sense that appropriate limits are in place when Scripture is the highest authority.

Well there is no pure sola scriptura in the sense that somebody reads the bible with no preconceptions and derives a theology from it. But clearly one can find passages in the bible that make is seem Jesus is not God. Even I as a Catholic am aware of those passages.

Basically asking if Catholics can confirm that a SS approach to the Bible gives them sufficient material for them to know that beliefs like monotheism and the resurrection of Jesus are essential to Christianity.

Since we don’t believe in SS to begin with, I don’t think we’ve given it much thought.

 

[Sixpence]

Muslims -don’t- believe the bible is true. They believe it is corrupted.

They believe they have the true content of Scripture, which they certainly believe to be true. They don’t grant it the highest authority, but they believe it (what they have of it) is true.

Well there is no pure sola scriptura in the sense that somebody reads the bible with no preconceptions and derives a theology from it.

I’m glad you tipped your hand relatively quickly. You ask Protestants to articulate and defend the outcomes of a specific doctrine which you define on your terms rather than ours, and you hand yourself the conclusion that the thing we practice does not truly exist in any real sense.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m glad you tipped your hand relatively quickly. You ask Protestants to articulate and defend the outcomes of a specific doctrine which you define on your terms rather than ours, and you hand yourself the conclusion that the thing we practice does not truly exist in any real sense.

Actually what I wanted to know is what doctrines will be found in the bible by -any person- who believes the bible is true. What is so hand-tipping about that question? I even granted three out of your four examples, based on my experience.

 

[Sixpence]

Actually what I wanted to know is what doctrines will be found in the bible by -any person- who believes the bible is true. What is so hand-tipping about that question? I even granted three out of your four examples, based on my experience.

If your group is inclusive of everyone who believes the Bible is true, you include people who add some other revelation with a higher authority. You get no continuity amongst everyone that way- not even the three examples that you agreed with. Those go away, too. Monotheism, for example, is eliminated by the book of Mormon and other items that Mormon prophets have produced. SS provides the continuity that’s required for anything to emerge, but from what you understand of it (which appears to be little), you don’t believe it really exists.

 

[benjohnson]

Remember, Sola Scriptura doesn’t push aside other authorities, it only demands that those authorities align with Scripture on matters of doctrine.

Where in Scripture is this written?

It isn’t - while there are passages in Scripture that speak to the value of the written word of God, you can’t really use Scripture to “prove” Sola Scriptura. If you have faith that Scripture is the written word of God, then by definition then all other authorities should agree - as God is consistent.

 

[snarflemike]

If your group is inclusive of everyone who believes the Bible is true, you include people who add some other revelation with a higher authority. You get no continuity amongst everyone that way- not even the three examples that you agreed with. Those go away, too. Monotheism, for example, is eliminated by the book of Mormon and other items that Mormon prophets have produced. SS provides the continuity that’s required for anything to emerge, but from what you understand of it (which appears to be little), you don’t believe it really exists.

OK, thanks for stopping by, I guess. In the meantime, anybody else who’s not also sorely disappointed with me, perhaps you’ll stick around and discuss what doctrines will universally be discovered in the bible by those who believe it to be true.