Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? Part II

[Zooey]

What is the methodist position?

Scripture is one of the four “sides” of what has come to be known as the Wesley Quadrilateral.
All theology and practice must be measured against all four:

1. 
   *]Scripture (One side–a mighty one, to be sure; but it does not stand alone)
   *]Tradition (Those ECFs!! )
   *]Experience ( If no one thought of it until now, its unlikely to be true…)
   *]Logic…(It is amazing how many unfortunate “innovations” could have been prevented by application of a little common sense).

 

[CentralFLJames]

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

No, you have it counter-clockwise. Scripture was born of tradition not the other way around.

You attempt to make scripture and tradition orthogonal concepts as if forming a new cross with tradition opposed to scripture (horizontal over vertical) on which to crucify the truth on. The obvious truth is that scripture and tradition are together the living word centered on the cross in Jesus. Your focus is on the wood of the cross rather than on the divinity of that which hangs on it - The Body of Christ. Your insistence to see things the way you want to see them completely misses the message and becomes profoundly reminiscent of scriptural warnings:
Bible Verses Relating to Perception Problems:

Jeremiah 5:21, 5:23:
Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people,
Who have eyes but do not see;
Who have ears but do not hear.
…
**But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart;
They have turned aside and departed. **

Psalm 135:15-16The idols of the nations are but silver and gold,
The work of man’s hands.
They have mouths, but they do not speak;
**They have eyes, but they do not see; **

**Mark8:18: HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? **

Isa. 6:9-11 (NIV) He said, "Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ Make the heart of this people callused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." Then I said, “For how long, O Lord?” And he answered: “Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged.”

Isa. 42:18-23 (NIV) “**Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see!.. You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing.” **…But this is a people plundered and looted, all of them trapped in pits or hidden away in prisons. They have become plunder, with no one to rescue them; they have been made loot, with no one to say, “Send them back.” Which of you will listen to this or pay close attention in time to come?

Hebr. 3:7-8, 4:7 (NIV) So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert…" Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

Rom. 8:5-7 (NIV) Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but **those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. **It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.

Luke 24:45 (NIV) **Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. **

Rom. 12:2 (NIV) Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.

OS this stubborn refusal to see the truth does not bode well for you. Pray that God opens your eyes and see what is on the cross and what was in the hearts, voices and lives of God’s Apostles. Do not become fixated only on the ink of scripture since without The Spirit of Truth and Apostolic Teaching it can confuse (and in fact this may be an embedded divine justice to prevent anyone from hijacking God’s word and re-speaking it in ways contrary to God’s revelation and teaching). God did not deliver us a “Do it yourself” cookbook recipe for salvation! God gave us His Church and Her Teaching.

Pray!

James

 

[dwhtxsports]

Old Scholar, again you state that scripture states that it is sufficient. Where is this stated please? I see where it is profitable, but I still cannot find where it is sufficient.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
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.

quote= OneNow1. I believe the edict of milan states pretty clearly Consantines intention for the fredom of all religions. Even if you were correct and you are not; God works in mysterious ways.

Peace, OneNow1.

 

[Pwrlftr]

OS:

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.

guanaphore:

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.

I don’t see anything wrong with what OS posted. In particular those Catholics that hold to a partim-partim view of scripture and tradition do in fact hold that not all in tradition is found in scripture. Am I wrong?

This has nothing at all to do with seperating scripture from anything else. Either all is in scripture and all is in tradition or part is in scripture and part is in tradition. To the best of my knowledge your church has not made any binding statements on whether the material sufficiency of scripture is correct or the partim - partim view is correct.

I don’t understand your strong reply to OS.

 

[Zooey]

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???

You’re not allowed to quote the Early Church Fathers, because what they wrote isn’t in Scripture.:dts:

:tiphat:We, :yup: au contraire, can quote them to our heart’s content, because we,accepting Tradition, count them as part of the deposit of faith…:coffeeread:

 

[Pwrlftr]

You’re not allowed to quote the Early Church Fathers, because what they wrote isn’t in Scripture.:dts:

:tiphat:We, :yup: au contraire, can quote them to our heart’s content, because we,accepting Tradition, count them as part of the deposit of faith…:coffeeread:

If you are being serious by saying “:You’re not allowed to quote the Early Church Fathers, because what they wrote isn’t in Scripture.:dts:”, than you misunderstand what sola scriptura is.

 

[guanophore]

If you are being serious by saying “:You’re not allowed to quote the Early Church Fathers, because what they wrote isn’t in Scripture.:dts:”, than you misunderstand what sola scriptura is.

Actually, a lot of what they wrote is found in scripture. However, it is appealing to an extrabiblical authority to validate that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and the sole rule of faith. How is appealing to the early church fathers any different than appealing to Sacred Tradition?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Actually, a lot of what they wrote is found in scripture. However, it is appealing to an extrabiblical authority to validate that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and the sole rule of faith. How is appealing to the early church fathers any different than appealing to Sacred Tradition?

SS does not rule out or do away with the ECF’s or tradition but would reject what you refer to as “Sacred Tradition” if by that you mean that “Sacred Traditions” is infallible. The reformers studied the ECF’s as much as anyone else and also held tightly to SS.

SS, at it’s most basic roots says that scripture is the sole infallible rule, not that there aren’t other rules such as creeds but that scripture is all we have left that is infallible.

 

[EphelDuath]

You must have misread it. There is nothing there about this.

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son;
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshiped and glorified”

I misread nothing.

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

Wrong, the Arians believed they were the true successors to the Apostles and used the Bible.

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

The fact that you think I’m reading it “wrong” shows that you acknowledge that tradition is necessary in order to determine which interpretation is “correct.”

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, that is not what he said. He said scriptures are FOR our pillar of faith. If he said what you are contending then he is blatantly contradicting 1 Timothy 3:15.

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)

Here he is just mistaken, as shown by John 21:25, which says But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Sorry but Jesus did not contradict that. How could He know what would happen? Because he predicted it.

That says nothing. You are saying the Church was corrupted. Jesus straight-up says that Hell will NOT prevail against it.

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.

Purgatory, the Real Presence, saint veneration, episcopal hierarchies, the Pope, etc. all existed before Constantine. So what are the pagan rites you refer to?

Also, your history is off: Constantine LEGALIZED Christianity. It was Theodosius who made it the state religion.

 

[Zooey]

If you are being serious by saying “:You’re not allowed to quote the Early Church Fathers, because what they wrote isn’t in Scripture.:dts:”, than you misunderstand what sola scriptura is.

On the contrary; I am being perfectly logical.
OS & Co will insist that we all come up with a chapter & verse for everything & anything. Fine. Then, he has to follow his own rule. He has to prove everything by giving us chapter & verse.
And I am anotther one, who wants to see the chapter & verse that tells us what the table of contents is supposed to say…and after that, I want to hear about the chapter & verse that is the source of the chapters & verse system…

That’s what we’re being told to produce: chapter & verse for everything. But we don’t have to; it’s for the proponents of SS to come up with everything from Scriptures, telling us that we have to find everything in Scriptures.
Nobody is going to play, until the other team starts playing by their own rules.

Actually, a lot of what they wrote is found in scripture. However, it is appealing to an extrabiblical authority to validate that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and the sole rule of faith. How is appealing to the early church fathers any different than appealing to Sacred Tradition?

The ECFs are Sacred Tradition.
So, I’m right!! The SSers have to stick to chapter & verse, & the rest of us can use extra-Biblical sources, which are part of the deposit of faith.
Every team plays by its own rules. How hard is that??

 

[wanner47]

Scripture is one of the four “sides” of what has come to be known as the Wesley Quadrilateral.
All theology and practice must be measured against all four:

1. 
   *]Scripture (One side–a mighty one, to be sure; but it does not stand alone)
   *]Tradition (Those ECFs!! )
   *]Experience ( If no one thought of it until now, its unlikely to be true…)
   *]Logic…(It is amazing how many unfortunate “innovations” could have been prevented by application of a little common sense).

1. 
   Not to derail, but what’s your source for this?
   
   According to The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church:
   

   Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

   The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:

   Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

   All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.

   I didn’t see anything on the site about Tradition, Logic, or Experience.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And I agree that Ignatius was correct. Ignatius did not say we were to believe everything the bishop said. We should follow the bishop but if the bishop is not following Christ and the Scriptures, then we are told to shun him. Now I don’t think a bishop would do that unless he taught false doctrines that can’t be found in Scripture and then he would be guilty.

. You are correct, and there were bishops who taught false doctrine Nestorius is one. The Church Council of of Ephesus was called by Pope Leo in 431 to address this heresy.

The problem with the Eunuch was that he was trying to intrepret prophecy and Peter tells us that prophecy can be difficult to interpret. That does not pertain to Scripture but prophecy. However a man of God, who has been studying, etc. should be able to discuss prophecy at least. But I don’t claim everyone can interpret it.

Is not prophecy part of Scripture? If Scripture were so easy to interpret, why are there so many interpretations out there on the necessity of Baptism, the nature of Baptism, the meaning of John 6, OSAS, Predestination, to name a few?

Read the link you gave to the new advent site. It does not pertain to Scripture at all but convuluted Scripture. They are making up stories that were completely false and how did Irenæus know they were false? Because they did not conform to Scripture. How else do you think he was able to refute the heretics? He couldn’t simply say they were wrong. He had to appeal to Scripture, and he did.

I did read it, that’s why I posted it. The purpose of the link is to show that heretics were using Scripture to back up their heretical ideas. Irenaeus was identifying those Scriptures which were twisted to back heretical claims.

As Christians we are instructed to search for the truth and required to search the Scriptures to find the falsehoods.

there are no falsehoods in Scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

On the contrary; I am being perfectly logical.
OS & Co will insist that we all come up with a chapter & verse for everything & anything. Fine. Then, he has to follow his own rule. He has to prove everything by giving us chapter & verse.
And I am anotther one, who wants to see the chapter & verse that tells us what the table of contents is supposed to say…and after that, I want to hear about the chapter & verse that is the source of the chapters & verse system…

That’s what we’re being told to produce: chapter & verse for everything. But we don’t have to; it’s for the proponents of SS to come up with everything from Scriptures, telling us that we have to find everything in Scriptures.
Nobody is going to play, until the other team starts playing by their own rules.

The ECFs are Sacred Tradition.
So, I’m right!! The SSers have to stick to chapter & verse, & the rest of us can use extra-Biblical sources, which are part of the deposit of faith.
Every team plays by its own rules. How hard is that??

You mean all those “chapter-and-verse” labels in the Bible were not in the original sacred scriptures that the Apostles read to themselves as they first wrote sacred scripture!

How did they make it all consistent from gospel to gospel and epistle to epistle without having all first met in a conference and divvy up what the writing assignments were?


James

 

[Zooey]

Not to derail, but what’s your source for this?

According to The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church:

I didn’t see anything on the site about Tradition, Logic, or Experience.

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=312&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=W

 

[Zooey]

You mean all those “chapter-and-verse” labels in the Bible were not in the original sacred scriptures that the Apostles read to themselves as they first wrote sacred scripture!

How did they make it all consistent from gospel to gospel and epistle to epistle without having all first met in a conference and divvy up what the writing assignments were?


James

http://bestsmileys.com/textinbubble1/5.gif The Sola people arehttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/15.gif upset enough!! Just imagine howhttp://bestsmileys.com/hitting/11.gif cranky they’d get if they found out about:bigyikes: this!!!

 

[wanner47]

archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=312&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=W

Neither the term “Wesley Quadrilateral,” nor the concepts contained in the definition provided, appear anywhere in the “Articles of Faith,” which leads me to believe that it isn’t an article of faith. So it seems to me that a Methodist could easily believe in sola scriptura as listed in the Methodist Articles of Faith (linked in my earlier post), while not believing in the Wesley Quadrilateral, and still be considered fully in line with Methodist theology.

Is this inaccurate?

 

[Newbie2]

Old Scholar, again you state that scripture states that it is sufficient. Where is this stated please? I see where it is profitable, but I still cannot find where it is sufficient.

I’m sure you’ll get something in reply that OS says will prove it, and it won’t, and we’ll all go back and forth again.

As I’ve said before, either someone accepts Catholic teaching on Tradition or not. If one rejects it, like OS seems to, if it’s not found is Scrupture, it ain’t so and vice-versa. With private interpretation of Scripture, one can “prove” most any theological notions, such as acceptance of homosexuality or the convoluted thinking of the WBC in Kansas.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Maybe we should have a Sola Scriptura forum – or at least sticky all the SS threads at the top of the Apologetics forum.

Anyway, I’ll throw down the same old gauntlet and see if it’s picked up this time:

To OldScholar et al:

Since Sola Scriptura is an affirmative position, it carries a burden of proof. Thus, if you wish us to accept it, you must demonstrate its truth. To wit:

What authority declared that Scripture is the only inerrant rule of faith?

Please answer succinctly, and cite your source(s). Naked assertions without corroboration are useless in this discussion.

Also, please note that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that scripture is “profitable for…” and not “sufficient for…”.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Church_Militant]

**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???**

Mainly because that has already been proved not to be whet they are saying, since they too taught material sufficiency.