Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? Part II

[CentralFLJames]

In addition, he said that if Tradition could not be supported by Scripture, it was false… Great man…Too bad he didn’t live when Rome took over the church!

Here we go again…

Historically speaking I don’t believe Rome under any government ever took over The Church. In a manner of speaking it could be said though that The Church took over Rome or at least carved out its own city state. Seems like God’s justice for paying back those Roman’s for all the early Church persecution.

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

They also said that scripture must be interpreted in the light of Church tradition.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

**You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

And Irenæus says in your quotation above, that “it behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be noursihed with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Now could he be any plainer about the importance of Scripture?**

 

[Old_Scholar]

Here we go again…

Historically speaking I don’t believe Rome under any government ever took over The Church. In a manner of speaking it could be said though that The Church took over Rome or at least carved out its own city state. Seems like God’s justice for paying back those Roman’s for all the early Church persecution.

James

In a manner of speaking, you should read the history of your church and you will see when Rome took over. You can also see by the dogmas and doctrines how Rome’s influence helped create the false dogmas so widely used by the RCC.

 

[CentralFLJames]

In a manner of speaking, you should read the history of your church and you will see when Rome took over. You can also see by the dogmas and doctrines how Rome’s influence helped create the false dogmas so widely used by the RCC.

Can you be more specific. Dates and times? Which specific dogmas and doctrines do you declare by fiat are false? Are you talking about the one’s Luther protested 1500 years after the Church was founded? Which history books are you reading?

James

 

[epostle]

This is what Irenæus wrote:

*“We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” (Adv. H. 3:1) *

He is saying the Scriptures are the foundation and pillar of our faith. That’s Sola Scriptura. And the context is quite clear. And he also said:

Where in this quote by Irenæus say, hint, suggest, or indirectly infer “scripture alone?

Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

“…that gospel which is given to us by the apostles…” Does that mean the apostles issued them a copy of the Four Gospels when Irenæus was ordained a bishop? Can we exclude The Gospel of Luke because Luke wasn’t one of the Twelve?

Is Irenæus referring only to Matthew, Mark, and John, because the other Apostles preaching didn’t count?
“…that gospel…” Please find one verse that says, hints, suggests, or indirectly infers the gospel message is confined to the written word alone. Use any bible search engine of your choosing. Try “gospel message”, or if you have the time, just “gospel”. Just for fun, search “my gospel”, or “entrusted gospel” You may begin to see a pattern that none of them refers to the written word alone, and the gospel is always the personal possession of the Apostles that went with succession, never scripture alone.

But the evidence presented below was never intended to disprove sola scriptura, but shows very strongly that the gospel message was “entrusted” only to those qualified to teach it: The Apostles and their successors.

Sola scriptura was siezed on by the rich and powerful who didn’t like the moral restrictions imposed on them that stopped them from being more rich and powerful. To undermine Church Authority it had to be proven that Apostolic Succession was unrelated or irrelevant to the totality of God’s Divine Revelation. To prove the Church had discredited herself as God’s Appointed Teacher, Apostolic Succession had to be dismissed, because it was politically expedient to elevate scripture above Tradition and that bad, bad pope! And a newly arrived literate class of people, the bourgeoisie, provided the market that kept the ink and paper rolling.

· *St. Paul
“…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel *to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)
“…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)
“…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)
· St. Timothy
“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)
“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

“…when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25)

“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel.” (2 Tim. 2:8)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel…” (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

 

[epostle]

You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

It’s not a dichotomy, they compliment each other.

And Irenæus says in your quotation above, that “it behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be noursihed with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Now could he be any plainer about the importance of Scripture?

The Church has always said the Scriptures are a primary source for doctrine, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but not the only source for doctrine. How the Bible got here proves the Bible is NOT THE ONLY SOURCE for doctrine. The very concept is not found anywhere in scriptures.

Irenæus first says says “…flee to the church…” then he says, “be noursihed with the Lord’s Scriptures." You make a dichotomy between the two, where Irenæus shows complimentarity.

Now could he be any plainer about the importance of Scripture?

Now we are getting somewhere!

 

[Newbie2]

And I fully believe that Christ did many things and spoke of many things. But He did not teach anything that is necessary for our faith and morals because Scripture tells us it is sufficient and true for all things.

Catholics keep saying there were other teachings that aren’t in the Scriptures but I keep asking for them but they aren’t produced.

In Christ…

“But He did not teach anything that is necessary for our faith and morals…”

Seriously, Dude. Is this what you really believe?

 

[guanophore]

What teachings of the Lord do you know of that aren’t in the Scriptures?

Offhand I cannot think of any, OS. The Teachings of the Church can all be found in scripture, even the Teaching that scripture should not be separated from the Sacred Tradition which produced it. I think the problem with Sola Scriptura is precisely that. Once the Sacred Writings are separated from the Apostolic Succession, all sorts of misinterpretation and misunderstanding result, and these are the things that are against the Teachings of the Lord. He specifically and continually taught unity, and Sola Scriptura produces the opposite.

**Well if we want to believe the early church fathers, the ones who really started the church, they all tell us that if it can’t be proved with Scripture, then it is false. In the other thread (#1) I listed all the early fathers that commented on Tradition.

So why would anyone believe it if it can’t be found in Scripture???**

Is it really your intention to promulgate deliberate deception on CAF, Old Scholar? I can’t even imagine how such a thing would even help your anti-Catholic cause!

The Early Church Fathers, as venerable as they are, are NOT “the ones who really started the Church”. If you really believe this, then you yourself have been deceived. In fact it was Jesus who built the Church:

Matt 16:18-20
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

And it was not build on the ECF but the Apostles:

Eph 2:19-22
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20** built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets**, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

 

[guanophore]

**Irenæus was a great man and you know he also appealed to Scripture when confronting heretics. It was his authority to combat heretics with.

In addition, he said that if Tradition could not be supported by Scripture, it was false… Great man…**

I think this would be a good topic to take to a new thread, Old Scholar. In fact, there are already two threads open on this topic that I know of. It is also interesting to note that Rome was not a significant political power in the world until long after the ecumencial councils began, and the canon was closed. All these matters of faith were settled prior to that time, such as the hypostatic union and the Trinity.

You are battling your own created strawman here. The Catholic Church does not discount Scripture, as you seem to purport.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’ll take this one:

This is what Irenæus wrote:

*]“We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, **they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” ***(Adv. H. 3:1)

He is saying the Scriptures are the foundation and pillar of our faith. That’s Sola Scriptura. And the context is quite clear.

How interesting that he would claim that – since Scripture claims that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth:

**1 Timothy 3:15: **

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

So…if Irenaeus says that Scripture is the “foundation and pillar” of our faith, and Scripture says the Church is the “pillar and ground” of truth, which are we to believe?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

**You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

And Irenæus says in your quotation above, that “it behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be noursihed with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Now could he be any plainer about the importance of Scripture?**

Nobody here is denying the importance of Scripture, but Irenaeus is clearly NOT asserting that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith in that passage. Perhaps you didn’t notice, but he says that one should “flee to the church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures”. How can the Bible be sufficient in Irenaeus’ eyes if he’s instructing Christians to seek the guidance of the Church?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Oh my goodness…my last post just woke me up to a curious issue:

How on earth can anyone use the Early Church Fathers to support the Sola Scriptura argument? They didn’t have a Bible yet – how could they hold it to be the sole rule of faith?

OK, so they had the Hebrew Scriptures – but they don’t prophesy of the coming of more scriptures. How could new “scriptures” be culled from the writings of believers and heretics alike? What authority could there be to make sure that the Scriptures that came along would, in fact, be inerrant, if the existing Scriptures didn’t offer any guidance on that issue?

Well, that’s why Christ instituted His Church: as the pillar and ground of truth, which would be led by the Holy Spirit to all truth, and against which evil would never prevail.

Peace,
Dante

 

[onenow1]

**And I fully believe that Christ did many things and spoke of many things. But He did not teach anything that is necessary for our faith and morals because Scripture tells us it is sufficient and true for all things.

Catholics keep saying there were other teachings that aren’t in the Scriptures but I keep asking for them but they aren’t produced.

In Christ…**

Quote =OneNow1. You were there ?

1cor15:3-4. For I handed on to you as first importance what I received.

2Tim2:2 and what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach other people. What’s Paul saying here ? I think what he is saying is that not all faithful people have the ability to teach truth thats what is implied here. All of us do not have the ability or knowledge to teach;Thats why Jesus left us with the Church to guide us. The Apostles left us the bible Jesus left us the Church. apostolic succession is just plain old common sense my friend.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[guanophore]

**You have it wrong. The heretics were using other writings, not Scripture. Irenæus used Scripture to straighten them out each time.

And Scripture does not deny itself at all. You must be reading those verses wrong. There is nothing there to support your charge.**

At least we are in agreement that it is possible for a person to “read wrong” (misinterpret) verses.

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems clear to me from reading Irenæus, that the heretics were indeed using scripture:

(Chapter 3) Such, then, is the account which they all give of their Pleroma, and of the formation Billius renders, “of their opinion.” of the universe, striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions. And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected. And others The punctuation and rendering are here slightly doubtful. of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a stedfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I agree that scripture was used to refute the heresies, but it was not separated from the Sacred Tradition. Doing so was considered heretical, as it is today.

This is what Irenæus wrote:

*]“We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, **they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith.” ***(Adv. H. 3:1)

He is saying the Scriptures are the foundation and pillar of our faith. That’s Sola Scriptura. And the context is quite clear. And he also said:

No. The fact that the Scriptures are a pillar and foundation of the faith does not nullify the role of the Church as the same. They are considered equal in authority.

Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

I guess I cannot see the conflict here. There is no teaching in the Catholic Church that contradicts the Holy Writings.

Rome claimed Christianity as it’s official religion in 337 A.D. and that is when they started introducing paganistic rites and rituals into Christianity. Read your early church history.

This is a misunderstanding of history. What occurred in 337 is that Christianity was no longer illegal. That is a very far cry from adopting an official religion. This did not happen until centuries later. What early church history are you reading! What pagan rites and rituals do you think were introduced?

You have been apparently indoctrinated with anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[guanophore]

**And I fully believe that Christ did many things and spoke of many things. But He did not teach anything that is necessary for our faith and morals because Scripture tells us it is sufficient and true for all things.

Catholics keep saying there were other teachings that aren’t in the Scriptures but I keep asking for them but they aren’t produced.

**

No, Catholics don’t say this. This saying is a figment of your anti-Catholic imagination. Catholics keep saying that the Holy Writings are not to be separated from the Holy Apostolic Teaching that produced them.

**You have it backwards. Tradition must be interpreted in light of Scripture.

And Irenæus says in your quotation above, that “it behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be noursihed with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Now could he be any plainer about the importance of Scripture?**

I think that is quite plain! It is also quite plain that Scripture is to be held in the bosom of the Church. It is within the Church that the Holy Writings are best understood, having been produced by her, for her, and about her.

 

[guanophore]

In a manner of speaking, you should read the history of your church and you will see when Rome took over. You can also see by the dogmas and doctrines how Rome’s influence helped create the false dogmas so widely used by the RCC.

This would be a good topic for another thread. What do you think about moving this to one of the “when did Rome take over” threads?

 

[Zooey]

I dare say that Catholics don’t accept Sola Scriptura for the same reason that we Methodists [properly catechized ones at least] don’t accept it:

[sign1]
It’s:nope: not true.****
[/sign1]**

Pardon me now whilst I go search the 'Net for a smiley of a Woman Setting a Cat Amidst The Pigeons…**

 

[Pwrlftr]

I dare say that Catholics don’t accept Sola Scriptura for the same reason that we Methodists [properly catechized ones at least] don’t accept it:

[sign1]
It’s:nope: not true.****
[/sign1]**

Pardon me now whilst I go search the 'Net for a smiley of a Woman Setting a Cat Amidst The Pigeons…**

What is the methodist position?

 

[Zooey]

Rome claimed Christianity as it’s official religion in 337 A.D. and that is when they started introducing paganistic rites and rituals into Christianity. Read your early church history.

In a manner of speaking

, you should read the history of your church and you will see when Rome took over. You can also see by the dogmas and doctrines how Rome’s influence helped create the false dogmas so widely used by the RCC.

[SIGN1]
Piffle.
Pshaw.
Pfui!!
[/SIGN1]

Ye’re talking :tsktsk: nonsense, yean.
If ye be wanting to disagree with Catholics, go right ahead, laddie. There’s nane as will deny ye the right.
But:nope: don’t try to re-write history. Revisionists can get:bigyikes: eaten alive around here. (I’ll just go and warm up my tea now…:coffeeread: )

 

[Stephen_C]

OS,
You are real hoot. I have come to the conclusion that you do not have a clue as to what Catholic’s believe. Or for that matter what the catholic Church truly teaches. Even though we have continually corrected you as to what we believe. You can not prove Sola Scriptura because it is not true. So instead you create a strawman about the Catholic Church to try and prove Sola Scriptura.