Whats wrong with Sola Scriptura.

[reggieM]

So we agree then that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?
We agree that at least 66 books are?

Are the scriptures an adequate foundation to base doctrine and practices on?

As just said, we accept 73 books as inspired-inerrant.

As for your second question, the Catholic Church does not look to the Scriptures to find out what Christ taught in its essence. That teaching was given to the Church before the Scriptures were written.

So, no – we don’t believe that the teachings of Christ are founded on the Scriptures because that would mean that we would have to have the Scripture first before we had the teaching of Christ.

But the teaching came first, the Scriptures later. Christ’s doctrine was taught in the early Church and handed down. it was preserved in the ancient churches, just as it is today around the world. Later, the New Testament recorded some of what the Apostles taught. The Church, founded by Christ and His apostles, established the canon of Scripture.

One error of Sola Scriptura is the belief that one should read the Scriptures to find out what Christian doctrine really is.

But the Scriptures are not independent of the Church that first taught them (through the first bishops), and then wrote them, and then preserved and canonized them.

The authority of the Church (as established directly by Christ to the apostles) is necessary in correctly interpreting the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

So we agree then that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant?
We agree that at least 66 books are?

Yes

Are the scriptures an adequate foundation to base doctrine and practices on?

No. Scripture can support these things, but they are founded upon Jesus Christ Himself. He reveals HImself in scripture, and through the Church. He is the Foundation, along with the Apostles and Prophets.

 

[Ignatius]

When I first heard of this belief I said, hey this makes sense. So I looked into it, and here was a shocker. All of the Catholic beliefs are in the Bible! And I was even reading a Protestant Bible. The thing is Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura.

The problem is that a Doctrine needs to be True. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura or the Bible Alone as the Sole Rule of Faith is false for the following reason.

Statement: The Bible Alone is the Sole Rule of Faith.
Therefore, all True Doctrines must be found in the Bible.
The doctrine that The Bible Alone is the Sole Rule of Faith is not in the Bible, therefore it is a false doctrine.

The bible makes no such claim for itself. The most it says is that it is profitable for admonishing, teaching, correction, etc… This certainly doesn’t even imply that there are not other things outside of scripture that are profitable for admonoition, etc.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[bobgenghiskhan]

If you read the Gospels, (John, Luke) they even say there is more than what is wirtten in the Bible, plus Catholics and Protestants cant agree on what constitutes the Bible

 

[JRKH]

The idea of Sola Scriptura can be viewed in a couple of different ways.

Those who hold to SS the tightest believe that the Bible and the HS is all that is necessary to salvation. That the individual, studying scripture prayerfully, will be lead by the HS to a true understanding. They further believe that if something is not found in the Bible, then it must be patently false. Furthermore, there is an underlying denial of, or even rebellion against authority.

Those who are not so tightly SS reason that the Bible is the sole authority, but it must be recognized that the Bible does not speak to every situation and therefore must be used as a guidebook more than an instruction book.

In both of these cases the holders to SS are looking at the Bible as a book and not as a collection of works gathered together to provide a consistant basis for teaching.

The RCC on the other hand looks at the Bible as “The primer” The most basic and central collection of writings from the earliest church period. While the church recognizes the central and profound authority of the Bible, it recognizes that there is a need for addressing new situations, and providing an authoritative and learned interpretation of scriptural and other early church teaching.

So, in a sense, even the RCC holds with a form of “Sola Scriptura” in that the Church is constantly checking new things against the Bible. In addition, members of the Church continue to study scripture for new insights into God’s words.

The problem is one of interpretation, and therein lies the rub.
Someone started a thread where they asked how anyone who believed in the Bible could not believe in the CC. We could also ask the question, how can anyone hold to a belief of Sola Scriptura when there are so many different translations and interpretations?

If there were only one, or two protestant churches out there and they held to Sola Scriptura, there might be a justification for saying that SS is correct. But when there are thousands of different protesant churches, each claiming SS and each different from the other, what does that say about the validity of individual interpretation of scripture?

I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as well as I would like, but it’s the best I can do for now.

Peace
James

 

[justasking4]

The idea of Sola Scriptura can be viewed in a couple of different ways.

Those who hold to SS the tightest believe that the Bible and the HS is all that is necessary to salvation. That the individual, studying scripture prayerfully, will be lead by the HS to a true understanding. They further believe that if something is not found in the Bible, then it must be patently false. Furthermore, there is an underlying denial of, or even rebellion against authority.

Those who are not so tightly SS reason that the Bible is the sole authority, but it must be recognized that the Bible does not speak to every situation and therefore must be used as a guidebook more than an instruction book.

In both of these cases the holders to SS are looking at the Bible as a book and not as a collection of works gathered together to provide a consistant basis for teaching.

The RCC on the other hand looks at the Bible as “The primer” The most basic and central collection of writings from the earliest church period. While the church recognizes the central and profound authority of the Bible, it recognizes that there is a need for addressing new situations, and providing an authoritative and learned interpretation of scriptural and other early church teaching.

So, in a sense, even the RCC holds with a form of “Sola Scriptura” in that the Church is constantly checking new things against the Bible. In addition, members of the Church continue to study scripture for new insights into God’s words.

The problem is one of interpretation, and therein lies the rub.
Someone started a thread where they asked how anyone who believed in the Bible could not believe in the CC. We could also ask the question, how can anyone hold to a belief of Sola Scriptura when there are so many different translations and interpretations?

If there were only one, or two protestant churches out there and they held to Sola Scriptura, there might be a justification for saying that SS is correct. But when there are thousands of different protesant churches, each claiming SS and each different from the other, what does that say about the validity of individual interpretation of scripture?

I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as well as I would like, but it’s the best I can do for now.

Peace
James

Let me ask you; are there not different interpretations about what the catholic church teaches? i have personally encountered a number of different interpretations on these issues from catholics. How can this be when you have an infallible interpreter in your church?

Secondly, when it comes to interpretation of the Scriptures, the catholic church has interpreted less than 20 verses of the Bible. There are literally thousands of uninterpreted verses of the Bible by the catholic church. This means when it comes to catholics interpreting the Scriptures they can’t know in vast majority of the cases if they have the correct interpretation.

Thirdly, do all catholics interpret the documents of that the church has pronounced the same way?

 

[JRKH]

I am no scholar but let me try to answer your points:

Let me ask you; are there not different interpretations about what the catholic church teaches? i have personally encountered a number of different interpretations on these issues from catholics. How can this be when you have an infallible interpreter in your church?

So far as I know the Church only has one set of teachings, and therefore one set of interpretations. As for what individual members might read/believe you’d have to ask them.

Secondly, when it comes to interpretation of the Scriptures, the catholic church has interpreted less than 20 verses of the Bible. There are literally thousands of uninterpreted verses of the Bible by the catholic church. This means when it comes to catholics interpreting the Scriptures they can’t know in vast majority of the cases if they have the correct interpretation.

This is not a question. It is a statement. One, in fact, that cannot be backed up.

In addition just let me say that you can just drop the “verses” thing. None of the books contained in the Bible were written with Chapter and verse. They didn’t have chaper and verse when they were placed in the canon. These were superimposed after 1300 for convenience of discussion and were never intended for the disection of the Bible and it’s meaning.
Try reading the lessons of the NT in their entirety instead of nibbling on verses.

Thirdly, do all catholics interpret the documents of that the church has pronounced the same way?

I haven’t polled “All Catholics” so I don’t know.

Peace
James

 

[reggieM]

Let me ask you; are there not different interpretations about what the catholic church teaches? i have personally encountered a number of different interpretations on these issues from catholics. How can this be when you have an infallible interpreter in your church?

That’s a good follow-up question. The Church permits a wide range of intepretations of Scripture, as long as those interpretations do not deny or contradict those doctrines which have been set down as “officially interpreted”.

What happens occasionally is that if a debate arises about a scriptural passage, and that debate causes serious questions about Christian doctrine – then the Church authority will make the final, official interpretation.

But other than that, you’re right that Catholics are permitted to arrive at different interpretations – of the parables, for example or the Beatitudes of Christ. There are a lot of ways to explain those verses which are all acceptable, just as long as someone is not saying “this is the one correct interpretation” or that “this interpretation contradicts Catholic teaching”.

Secondly, when it comes to interpretation of the Scriptures, the catholic church has interpreted less than 20 verses of the Bible. There are literally thousands of uninterpreted verses of the Bible by the catholic church. This means when it comes to catholics interpreting the Scriptures they can’t know in vast majority of the cases if they have the correct interpretation.

Strictly speaking, that sounds correct (although I believe the Church has officially interpreted more than 20 verses). But as above, Catholics are free to interpret the Scriptures in a variety of ways, just as long as it doesn’t conflict with official teaching.

Thirdly, do all catholics interpret the documents of that the church has pronounced the same way?

In practical reality – no, that doesn’t happen. But the remedy for that is the Church provides a voice of authority in those cases where Catholics have made errors of judgement.

Some Catholics might mistakenly believe that abortion is permitted in some cases. They could misinterpret the teaching. But that’s where the bishop, united with the Pope, could give an authoritative decision.

There is definitely room for debate in Catholic theology. But the key difference with Sola Scriptura is that Christ gave the Church all the official doctrines that are needed for a person’s salvation. So there cannot be any debate on those things and Catholics submit themselves to those teachings of Christ.

But other parts of Scripture, knowledge of which is not directly required as doctrine for salvation, can be interpreted in a variety of ways – at least until the Pope or Council makes an official statement on it.

Catholic theology will look at what was handed down from the Fathers of the Church and the early Church. Eventually official teachings will be given by the bishops.

Sometimes it can take a long time before something is made an official teaching. The Immaculate Conception was debated for a long time before it was officially declared a doctrine.

 

[justasking4]

That’s a good follow-up question. The Church permits a wide range of intepretations of Scripture, as long as those interpretations do not deny or contradict those doctrines which have been set down as “officially interpreted”.

What happens occasionally is that if a debate arises about a scriptural passage, and that debate causes serious questions about Christian doctrine – then the Church authority will make the final, official interpretation.

But other than that, you’re right that Catholics are permitted to arrive at different interpretations – of the parables, for example or the Beatitudes of Christ. There are a lot of ways to explain those verses which are all acceptable, just as long as someone is not saying “this is the one correct interpretation” or that “this interpretation contradicts Catholic teaching”.

Strictly speaking, that sounds correct (although I believe the Church has officially interpreted more than 20 verses). But as above, Catholics are free to interpret the Scriptures in a variety of ways, just as long as it doesn’t conflict with official teaching.

In practical reality – no, that doesn’t happen. But the remedy for that is the Church provides a voice of authority in those cases where Catholics have made errors of judgement.

Some Catholics might mistakenly believe that abortion is permitted in some cases. They could misinterpret the teaching. But that’s where the bishop, united with the Pope, could give an authoritative decision.

There is definitely room for debate in Catholic theology. But the key difference with Sola Scriptura is that Christ gave the Church all the official doctrines that are needed for a person’s salvation. So there cannot be any debate on those things and Catholics submit themselves to those teachings of Christ.

But other parts of Scripture, knowledge of which is not directly required as doctrine for salvation, can be interpreted in a variety of ways – at least until the Pope or Council makes an official statement on it.

Catholic theology will look at what was handed down from the Fathers of the Church and the early Church. Eventually official teachings will be given by the bishops.

Sometimes it can take a long time before something is made an official teaching. The Immaculate Conception was debated for a long time before it was officially declared a doctrine.

My point is that catholics don’t have any real advantage over those who embrace sola scriptura. The same kinds of problems that are associated with sola scriptura are also found in the catholic church. In fact its far more difficult for catholics since they must find ways to incorporate a lot more factors into their theology because of Tradition and various teachings of the church. You can see this in the defense of the various catholic doctrines and dogmas.
Even the church fathers don’t always speak with a unified voice at times.

 

[justasking4]

JRKH;3260681]

I am no scholar but let me try to answer your points:

Nor am i.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me ask you; are there not different interpretations about what the catholic church teaches? i have personally encountered a number of different interpretations on these issues from catholics. How can this be when you have an infallible interpreter in your church?

JRKH
So far as I know the Church only has one set of teachings, and therefore one set of interpretations. As for what individual members might read/believe you’d have to ask them.
That may be. A lot is found in your catechism. However even though things may have been formalized there it is still required for catholics to interpret on their own what it means. Just as there are a number of different interpretations of the scriptures by protestants so there is for catholics.

Quote:justasking4
Secondly, when it comes to interpretation of the Scriptures, the catholic church has interpreted less than 20 verses of the Bible. There are literally thousands of uninterpreted verses of the Bible by the catholic church. This means when it comes to catholics interpreting the Scriptures they can’t know in vast majority of the cases if they have the correct interpretation.

JRKH
This is not a question. It is a statement. One, in fact, that cannot be backed up.

If you think i’m wrong then can you point me to the source that says otherwise?

In addition just let me say that you can just drop the “verses” thing. None of the books contained in the Bible were written with Chapter and verse. They didn’t have chaper and verse when they were placed in the canon. These were superimposed after 1300 for convenience of discussion and were never intended for the disection of the Bible and it’s meaning.
Try reading the lessons of the NT in their entirety instead of nibbling on verses.

I agree the verses were added later that made it easy to study the scriptures. That still does not change the meaning of a particular verse or passage though. To understand the Scriptures you need to know what the words meant in their original contexts and how they are used throughout the scriptures that can help us to understand the meaning.

Quote:justasking4
Thirdly, do all catholics interpret the documents of that the church has pronounced the same way?

JRKH
I haven’t polled “All Catholics” so I don’t know.

How about in your own personal expierence?

Peace

 

[reggieM]

My point is that catholics don’t have any real advantage over those who embrace sola scriptura. The same kinds of problems that are associated with sola scriptura are also found in the catholic church. In fact its far more difficult for catholics since they must find ways to incorporate a lot more factors into their theology because of Tradition and various teachings of the church. You can see this in the defense of the various catholic doctrines and dogmas.
Even the church fathers don’t always speak with a unified voice at times.

Ok, the key difference (a huge difference) is that in the Catholic Church there is an authority established by God to teach in the name of Christ – with the authority of Christ.

So Catholics are not just directed to read the Scriptures and writings of tradition and figure out what the doctrines are.

We have been given the true teachings – through the Church. Those teachings lived in church communities which were founded by the apostles.

So this is the real difference. Catholics believe what is taught by the Church officially. This is the path to God – to know and serve Him in the way He wants.

That is a path of certainty since the teachings come with apostolic and divine authority.

 

[EphelDuath]

Let me ask you; are there not different interpretations about what the catholic church teaches? i have personally encountered a number of different interpretations on these issues from catholics. How can this be when you have an infallible interpreter in your church?

There is disambiguation because some people don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s hardly a fault of the Church; there have been thousands of misinterpretations of the Bible in history, but you yourself say the Bible is credible for Christian teachings.

Secondly, when it comes to interpretation of the Scriptures, the catholic church has interpreted less than 20 verses of the Bible.

No, it hasn’t. It has only INFALLIBLY interpreted a handful of verses due to heresies springing from alternate interpretations. In light of Church teaching (i.e. knowing that the Eucharist is literally the flesh and blood of Christ), no infallible proclamation is necessary; John 6 is no longer ambiguous but understandable in Church light. If you want to play semantics, you could go through all the Councils (there were, what, 21 ecumenical councils?), pick out all of the proclamations made there and then find applicable Bible verses. The Church has technically infallible proclaimed what these verses say even if the Magisterium has not talked about them directly.

You say that Sola scripturists are on the same level as Catholics because Church teaching is ambiguous. This is incorrect. There are as many as a dozen teachings on the Lord’s Supper among Protestants, but only one in the Church. Four to six about baptism, one in the Church. Five about the Trinity, one in the Church.

Thirdly, do all catholics interpret the documents of that the church has pronounced the same way?

As said above, no, and this is no fault of the Church but of its laymen who are intentionally or accidentally misinformed.

 

[reggieM]

Even the church fathers don’t always speak with a unified voice at times.

That’s definitely true. There were many debates. Even in great Church Councils there were some debates about how to define a doctrine or a point in a Creed.

But the big difference and advantage is that the debate can end with an official teaching that is protected from error by God.

If an official teaching is not given by the magisterium then there is something like Sola Scriptura because theologians and believers have to find the meaning. But even this is different than Sola Scriptura because we try to figure out what was taught in the early Church. If we can’t find that, then something new needs to develop. Something like the moral teaching on embryonic stem cells would be an example.

There wasn’t anything in the early Church on that specific topic, but we can use the teachings that forbid abortion and apply them.

New challenges come up and then decisions are needed. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that there can be no real end to the debate. There’s no offical final ruling.

Plus, the highest authority is usually considered scholars. But they are not protected or established by God to speak for Him. As we know, scholars can be very wrong about things also.

 

[justasking4]

reggieM;3261079]Ok, the key difference (a huge difference) is that in the Catholic Church there is an authority established by God to teach in the name of Christ – with the authority of Christ.

So Catholics are not just directed to read the Scriptures and writings of tradition and figure out what the doctrines are.

We have been given the true teachings – through the Church. Those teachings lived in church communities which were founded by the apostles.

There is much your church teaches that the apostles never taught or dreamed of. The marian dogmas are a case in point.

So this is the real difference. Catholics believe what is taught by the Church officially. This is the path to God – to know and serve Him in the way He wants.

That is a path of certainty since the teachings come with apostolic and divine authority.

Not all of it does. Not all teachings in your church are apostolic.

 

[EphelDuath]

There is much your church teaches that the apostles never taught or dreamed of. The marian dogmas are a case in point.

The apostles certainly taught that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, as evident by the Gospel of Luke. You continue to deny it but the comparisons between Mary and the Ark are too uncanny to dismiss.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
There is much your church teaches that the apostles never taught or dreamed of. The marian dogmas are a case in point.

EphelDuath
The apostles certainly taught that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, as evident by the Gospel of Luke. You continue to deny it but the comparisons between Mary and the Ark are too uncanny to dismiss.

Have you checked any catholic commentaries on this? Do they agree with you?

 

[area52]

No holden, Protestants will never win…

It is not about who win or who loses. What is important is where we end up when we pass from this world.

When I read the book of Romans, I felt that the Jews/Israelites are much have the same belief as the Roman Catholic.

[Rom 2:17] Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God;
[Rom 2:18] if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
[Rom 2:19] if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark,
[Rom 2:20] an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth–
[Rom 2:21] you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?
[Rom 2:22] You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
[Rom 2:23] You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
[Rom 2:24] As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

[Rom 10:1] Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.
[Rom 10:2] For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
[Rom 10:3] Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
[Rom 10:4] **Christ is the end of the law **so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

[EphelDuath]

Have you checked any catholic commentaries on this? Do they agree with you?

Yes, they do. I know the Navarre Study Bible mentions it. Pope Pius XII explained it in Munificentissimus Deus, she is called such in the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, St. Athanasius used the title in a sermon.

 

[reggieM]

The marian dogmas are a case in point.

I have discussed the title “Mother of God” with Sola Scripture believers and I found it impossible to see how they could deny the use of this term.

It is clearly supported by a Sola Scriptura reading.

But more importantly to me, on what basis do virtually all Protestants (except Anglicans) reject an early Ecumenical Council of the Church that formally authorized the use of the term “Mother of God”?

That would say that an early Council taught false doctrine.

So which Church then could have taught the true doctrine from that point to the 16th century?

But there’s not even a valid objection to the use of the term “Mother of God” that I can see.

Do you accept that term?

 

[EphelDuath]

But again, I question the relevance of this. Luke quotes the Old Testament four times as a direct correlation to St. Mary. Perhaps if it was only once, maybe twice, I would see your point; but four times is not something that you can push aside.