Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Newbie2]

Be happy to. How about opening a new thread?

 

[Lampo]

In 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”, where does it say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith?

 

[IronHammer]

In 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”, where does it say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith?

The same place it tells protestants that they don’t need an earthly shepherd appointed by Christ to decide on crucial matters like abortion, actively homosexual clergy, birth control and the sanctity of marriage and divorce.

Ultimately, all of this arguing boils down to this… Protestants positively detest the notion that we, as Christians, have an early authority, appointed by God Himself, to decide on matters of faith and morals. They abhor the thought of being told how their lives must be lived and what to believe.

So they invented this notion of ‘scripture alone’ to justify not having to adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium.

Plain and simple. It’s a sham.

 

[Orionthehunter]

You can keep deflecting my comments that way but the truth is that you can’t answer my question because you know it is true. Is it going to be necessary for me to list all the changes through the years when a new pope would come that disagreed with the previous “infallible” pope and change dogma?

Well let’s discuss the dogma of salvation only in the Roman Catholic Church.

That has been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years but now has been changed.

Your comments?

How has it changed? By the way, please document that it has changed referencing authoritative Catholic documents. It is a waste of time arguing about opinions of people who didn’t or don’t know what the Church taught in the past or teaches now.

 

[Tomster]

Well let’s discuss the dogma of salvation only in the Roman Catholic Church.

That has been taught for hundreds and hundreds of years but now has been changed.

Your comments?

ASKED AND ANSWERED for the second time today.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Evidently the NT church and the early church believed it was essential to write down the teachings of Jesus for example. Luke 1:1-4 and John 20:31 are a case in point.

guanophore
If you accept the authority of the NT and early church to believe and write these, then why do you reject the other Teachings that they handed down?

Because it does not line up with the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3285645]
Originally Posted by justasking4
When Paul makes mention of “traditions” what exactly is he referring to? Whose traditions is he speaking of?

guanophore
Paul considered Christianity to be the fulfillment of Judaism. His traditions emanated from the Fathers, and contained all that was taught to him from childhood, just as he writes about Timothy.

So we agree then that the traditions he is referring then are not many of the traditions that the catholic church teaches today?

guanophore
Acts 26:5
5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.

Paul then received Christian Tradition from the Church, and from Christ Himself, and faithfully passed on these instructions about how to live the Christian life, including how the Sacred Writings should be understood.

What are some examples of the “Christian Tradition from the Church” that you are referring to here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Are you saying that no one knows exactly what the Traditions are in your church if you can’t point explicitedly to it?

guanophore
No. That is what YOU are saying!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It would seem then that catholics could have different Traditions if you a catholic doesn’t know explicitedly what they are. Is this correct ?

guanophore
Only if you are confusing customs with Sacred Tradition.

Can you give me an example of each?

Catholics may be as ignorant of Sacred Tradition as they may be of Scripture. Their ignorance of Divine Revelation does not subtract from the importance or inerrancy of it.

What would a catholic need to do to become knowledgeable of the Sacred Tradiitons? What source or sources would he need to consult to know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

What do you do about Traditions that were totally unknown to the apostles?

Since I don’t think there are any, it is not possible for me to answer this. Maybe you could answer it better, since you seem to think they exist?

Is it not true that the catholic church claims all its Sacred Traditions are handed down from the apostles? If this is the case then the only source for the apostles teachings is the Scriptures. If its not in Scripture then you can’t have a Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture. For example since the assumption of Mary was never taught by the apostles its not an apostolic tradition. It would not be a Sacred Tradition.

 

[justasking4]

John 20:31
31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

**They were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the Son of God.
Not for us to worship the book they went in. **

John 20:30

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, **which are not recorded **in this book.

John 21:25

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

**not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology. **

Since the Scriptures do say that not all that Jesus did was not recorded what then was it that we must observe that is “outside” the Scriptures? Do you know exactly what it is?

 

[justasking4]

In 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”, where does it say that Scripture is the sole rule of faith?

It doesn’t. Now what else is inspired-inerrant besides the Scriptures? What else carries the authority of the God breathed Scriptures?

 

[MrS]

Since the Scriptures do say that not all that Jesus did was not recorded what then was it that we must observe that is “outside” the Scriptures? Do you know exactly what it is?

That should not be an issue. The Catholic Church denies the full and sufficient final authority of Scripture.

Jesus left us three (3) witnesses to the Truth (Himself)

Tradition is all He revealed to the Apostles (nothing after the death of John the Beloved and Last to die)

Scripture is that part (perhaps a very large part) of that Tradition.

Magisterium/Church is the on-going, teaching authority which alone can properly interpret either the Tradition or the Scriptures…

Thankfully Jesus gave His personal guarantee/promise/oath that none of the three would contradict one or both of the other two.

That promise does not exist outside the Catholic Church… in spite of ourselves.:yup:

.

 

[davidv]

It doesn’t. Now what else is inspired-inerrant besides the Scriptures? What else carries the authority of the God breathed Scriptures?

The teaching authority of the Magisterium in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Since the Scriptures do say that not all that Jesus did was not recorded what then was it that we must observe that is “outside” the Scriptures? Do you know exactly what it is?

So what you’re saying is that the things Jesus said, taught and did that were not recorded were not important? That none of it matters?

 

[MrS]

It doesn’t. Now what else is inspired-inerrant besides the Scriptures? What else carries the authority of the God breathed Scriptures?

Well… who else received the power

" … whatever you bind… loose… shall have been bound in Heaven"

Since Heaven is where all Truth resides in the Person of the Christ Jesus, those with that God given power cannot err in matters of faith and morals (Truth) That is God breathed.

.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Because it does not line up with the Scriptures.

It would if you toed the line with respect to proper Catholic teaching.

James

 

[justasking4]

Stephen_C;3285345]I don’t get your point. Whether you believe it or not, that Bible you quote from came out of Scared Tradition. So if you a SS believer….how can you state that Mary did not remain a virgin?

Because it mentions her children for example in Matthew 13:55-56 and even Paul refers to James as the Lord’s brother in Galatians 1:19.

How can you say she was not assumed up to Heaven? It is not in the Bible.

It not only not in the Bible but its not mentioned until around 377.

I do not believe in SS because it is false. It was born out of the reformation. All you have is Scared Scripture (A Catholic book with a few OT books missing)

If all i have is Sacred Scripture then that is more than enough. I have the advantage because only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. There is no other. Not even catholic traditions can claim this.

We Catholic’s have our Scared Scripture and with Scared Tradition and Christ’s Church (Catholic Church) to guide us to truth. As to the other things you said about Mary…well that is just your own fallible and filtered interpretation.

It not just my “filtered interpretation” but a close study of the Scriptures. Let me encourage to look in the Scriptures for Mary’s immaculate conception. You won’t find it mentioned or hinted at.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4

Because it does not line up with the Scriptures.

CentralFLJames

It would if you toed the line with respect to proper Catholic teaching.

James

Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

 

[davidv]

Lets test the Scriptures with some of the teachings of the church.
Where do the Scriptures teach Mary’s assumption?

Where do we see anyone in the NT praying to a Christian who had died? Stephen was the first to die. Are there any prayers to him in the NT?

These questions are off topic and already dealt with numerous times in other threads.

 

[Old_Scholar]

These questions are off topic and already dealt with numerous times in other threads.

These questions are not off topic. They fit the title of this thread very well.

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

Would Irenæus believe the assumption of Mary if he couldn’t prove it by Scripture? I can answer that one for you—No!

 

[MrS]

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

Because it is unbiblical

Because it is unhistorical

Because it is unworkable

and again I say…
The Catholic Church denies the full and sufficient final authority of Scripture.

Jesus left us three (3) witnesses to the Truth (Himself)

Tradition is all He revealed to the Apostles (nothing after the death of John the Beloved and Last to die)

Scripture is that part (perhaps a very large part) of that Tradition.

Magisterium/Church is the on-going, teaching authority which alone can properly interpret either the Tradition or the Scriptures…

Thankfully Jesus gave His personal guarantee/promise/oath that none of the three would contradict one or both of the other two.

That promise does not exist outside the Catholic Church… in spite of ourselves.:yup:

 

[Schabel]

These questions are not off topic. They fit the title of this thread very well.

The question was why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura? The early church fathers believed Scripture held all truth, why don’t Catholics of today? When did you stop accepting Scripture as the truth and the only truth?

Would Irenæus believe the assumption of Mary if he couldn’t prove it by Scripture? I can answer that one for you—No!

How can you say these things when you’ve been shown that they are false?