Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[Old_Scholar]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain *non-scriptural sources *as authoritative oral tradition. They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.

What most Roman Catholics know about tradition is not correct. Once a Catholic tries to establish “tradition” to justify his beliefs, then he must show that it is **Roman Catholic Tradition **and not **Eastern Orthodox Tradition **that provides the truth. The Eastern Orthodox appeals to **exactly the same tradition **the Roman Catholic Church does and they **both can’t be right because they differ in their beliefs. ** That is something a Roman Catholic cannot overcome. Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient. He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition. It is up to the Roman Catholic to show their church tradition is authoritative and that can’t be done.

The only reason the Catholic Church wanted to canonize the scriptures is because of heretical figures, such as Montanius and others and the only way to prove them wrong is by scripture. They also appealed to the same fathers for their beliefs. If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. There was no binding oral tradition given after the last apostle and New Testament writer laid down his pen. Nothing written after 100 A.D. has ever been accepted for the Canon.

Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that could not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid.

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as *sola scriptura *advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with. Catholics disagree among themselves about just which papal decrees, council rulings, etc., are infallible and which ones are not. A Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox or an Anglican may refer to how he follows “the church” or “tradition”, but he’s not able to define just what that is. He can’t cite something authoritative or infallible, comparable to the evangelical’s 66 book canon.

This is a good question, then, to opponents of sola scriptura. What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura?

I will list the early fathers and their views on *Sola Scriptura *in another post.

Please—a nice Christian thread…

 

[BlaineTog]

As I recall, there’s a scriptural passage that refutes sola scriptura. But I don’t remember which one it is, since my memory isn’t very good, and I may be wrong.

 

[DarkMark]

You said, **"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.” Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition."**

Notice in 1 Tim 3:16-17, it does not say “ONLY”!. Sacred Scriptures is not the only rule of faith!

Second. the Apostle Paul told his followers to stand fast on Traditions which they received by Him either in writing or oral:

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

So according to Saint Paul, you are wrong Old Scholar.

You said, "Church tradition that does not pertain to matters of salvation, morals or faith are the only oral things handed down that could not be proven by scripture. The early church fathers agreed that tradition had to be supported by Scripture or it was invalid."

There was no Church Father who believe in Sola-Scriptural, all Fathers believed in the importance of Sacred Traditions as well as Sacred Scriptures. Here is a few citations:

AMBROSE

‘But if they will not beleive the doctrines of the priests, let them beleive Christ’s oracles, let them beleive the admonitions of angels who say, “For with God nothing is impossible”. Let them beleive the apostles CREED WHICH the ROMANS CHURCH as always kept undefiled’
To Sircius

ATHANASIUS

‘The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT and enough by ITSELF, for the subversion of all ireligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church’
Ad Afros 1

‘But the WORD OF THE LORD which came THROUGH the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever’
Ad Afros 2

AUGUSTINE

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it”
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

BASIL

“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers”
Holy Spirit 22

 

[DarkMark]

Continued:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures(OT), I will not beleive the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the FAITH which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’
Epis Philadelphians 8,2

‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church’
Epis Symyrnaens 8

IRENAEUS(The Father of Tradition)

‘The apostles at that time FIRST PREACHED the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith’
Against Heresies(AH) 3,1

‘Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him’
AH 3,5,1

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
AH 3,4:1

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

‘It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.’
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’
Catechetical Lectures 5,12

‘Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW’
Catechetical Lectures 5,33

ORIGEN

“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”
First Principles 1,2

So as you can, Fathers from the Second Century and so forth did not believe in the Bible alone theory, NO FATHER DID! I am curious to on your “list” to show that the Fathers believed in Bible alone or that they believe ALL Traditions is in the Bible.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Continued:

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

’If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures(OT), I will not beleive the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the FAITH which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’
Epis Philadelphians 8,2

‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church’
Epis Symyrnaens 8

IRENAEUS(The Father of Tradition)

’The apostles at that time FIRST PREACHED the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith’
Against Heresies(AH) 3,1

**‘Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him’**AH 3,5,1

’For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
AH 3,4:1

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME

‘It is NOT by drawing on the Holy Scriptures NOR BY GUARDING the TRADITION of some holy person that the HERETICS have formulated these doctrines.’
Refutation of All Heresies 1,Preface

CYRIL of JERUSALEM

**‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the SCRIPTURES.’**Catechetical Lectures 5,12

**‘Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW’**Catechetical Lectures 5,33

ORIGEN

“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”
First Principles 1,2

So as you can, Fathers from the Second Century and so forth did not believe in the Bible alone theory, NO FATHER DID! I am curious to on your “list” to show that the Fathers believed in Bible alone or that they believe ALL Traditions is in the Bible.

You need to read what yo posted. They are saying the Sctriptures are necessary. How can you read it any other way? You’ll get your list tomorrow. Bed time now…

 

[DarkMark]

You said, "Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is. They follow a 66 book canon of scripture. But what is the “rule of faith” among those who reject sola scriptura? Not only do they disagree in their interpretations of their rule of faith, as sola scriptura advocates do, but they also disagree among themselves about what their rule of faith is to begin with."

By what Authority do Protestants have 66 book? The Christians in the First, Second, Third (etc) all accepted the 7 books that Protestants took out of their Bibles. So really Old Scholar, by what Authority do you based your man made 66-Bible? And don’t say “Jesus and the Apostles never quoted them”, because they did!

The Catholic Faith is one Faith, while the Protestant Faith are so diverged. So what works? Sola-Scriptural has only been around for 500 years and look at all the damage it has done. Over 35,000 Protestant Churches!

You said, "Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise."

As I alreadly proven, Scriptures states that Apostles’ Traditions are in the same level as Sacred Scriptures.

 

[DarkMark]

You need to read what yo posted. They are saying the Sctriptures are necessary. How can you read it any other way? You’ll get your list tomorrow. Bed time now…

You have a wrong view on the Fathers. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH said that he will not believe the Gospels unless the OT speaks of Christ. CYRIL of JERUSALEM believed that the Church has authority to decide which books are Scriptures and which are not.

For Irenaeus tradition included the faith that was handed on-oral or in writing. The Scriptural proof were about Christ in the OT.

Third, Catholics do not believe Scriptures are not necessary, but that not everything needs the Holy Scripture to prove if its correct or not. Remember, the Apostles use the Old Testament to prove that Jesus is Christ, but this does not prove Sola-Scriptural.

The Fathers are the Church believed in the Authority of Scriptures. But they also believed in Sacred Traditions. Did the Fathers of the Church used Sacred Scriptures to prove doctrines? Yes, heavly in fact. Did the Fathers of the Church believe Scriptures is sole rule of faith/Authority? No! Saint Irenaeus, for instance, believe that the Bishops has authority.

Old Scholar, do you believe that the Bread and Wine is transform into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, The Authority of Bishops, Infant Baptism, Apostical Succession? All these were believe by the Fathers of the Church, including the First and Second Century!

So if you going to point out Fathers who believe in Bible Alone, which none did, then please tell us why you don’t believe them on other issues. The Fathers of the Church did not believe what Protestants believed today.

This what I cannot understand, Protestants tried to prove that the Fathers of the Church did not believe in Sacred Traditions, but the same Fathers that they claim did not believe in Traditions also believe in other Catholic Doctrines that Protestants do not believe.

 

[stfrancisway]

The following is a transcript of a taped debate between Scott Hahn, Catholic convert and former Presbyterian minister, and Dr. Robert Knudson of Westminster Seminary.
[The original tape was distributed by Catholic Answers.]



…I do believe that the Bible is to be regarded by all Catholics as our guide, as our source, as our judge, as the living and active Word of God, alive in our lives, in addition to which the Church confesses a living tradition to which she is bound out of obedience to Scripture. For Scripture speaks of that living tradition very naturally, very easily and matter-of-factly, as we’ll see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 where Paul commends and commands the Thessalonian Christians to hold fast to what Christ passed on to him, to what he passed on to them, to the tradition, whether it is written or whether it is spoken. Now Paul could take matter-of-factly, and he could state matter-of-factly the authority and existence of a living tradition. He didn’t feel any need to argue for this living tradition; he assumed it and he assumed the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about, so I would ask my Protestant brethren, where is that living tradition and how is it that we are held fast to that living tradition and how is that living tradition distinct from my own individual interpretation of the Bible?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Why do Catholics reject Sola Scriptura? Simple. Because Sola Scriptura is itself blatantly non-scriptural as well as non-traditional and most importantly because it is false doctrine. But also because its against Church Teaching; and besides that its offensive to common sense.

The validity of Sola Scriptura has been argued ad-nauseum and proved to be completely without merit nor with scriptural basis.

The first problem with Sola Scriptura is that it is left in “limbo” ( ) by the delimma of the chicken and the egg paradox. We didn’t have scripture for about 400 years after the apostles (more later). Sola Scriptura itself is a concept that that has no orthodox genesis but is conjured up out of thin air to emerge 1500 years distant from The Church as a late offshoot of the protestant rebellion. That strands a lot of early Christians who were persecuted and martyred for their faith.

Tradition and oral teaching predates formal scripture formation centuries before The Church even assembles the “New Testament” scripture. In other words we did not have a written and assembled “bible” till after abut 400 years of early church teaching and oral tradition. Outside of oral tradition and a few early manuscripts there literally was no “Scriptura” to hold in one’s hand. See the chicken and egg problem of Sola Scriptura? But in this case we know definitively that tradition and oral teaching came centuries before scripture.

Further, the Bible (scripture) itself actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ’s work is in Scripture (John 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2 2). He instructs us to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2 15).
We are told that the first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2 42)

Also noteworthy to Catholics is that doctrine of Trent and Vatican I, had resolved that tradition was more extensive than Scripture. This puts more emphasis on the Church Teaching and authority (things that defeat Sola Scripture).

Further scripture itself attests that The Church is unassailable.
Matthew 16:18:

“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Given that scripture affirms that The Church can not fail we Catholics are required to be obedient to Christ’s teaching and His conferred authority. But common sense even tells us that Sola Scriptura is defunct.

Pope John XXIII commissioned an in depth study of this topic in 1963 and went far back into early church history to clarify it and resolve it definitively. The Pope published Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Second Vatican Council). That effort applied an enormous amount of pedigree, scholarship, research, theological expertise and the Vatican’s vast libraries of manuscripts to reaffirm the teaching. How much thought was put into forming the “theory” of Sola Sctiptura? Sola Scriptura loses all credibility and becomes dubious at the instant it tries to challenge The Church.

Here is how Vatican II explained the relationship between Tradition and Scripture:
Originally Posted by Die Verbum - extract:

"Hence there exist a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely know. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”

The teaching and authority is clear for Catholics.

But let me appeal to common sense as well.
Consider that the earliest Christians had no New Testament to appeal to; they learned from oral, not written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because printing had not yet been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. When did the concept of sola scripture even come along and start to take traction among the protestant sects - in the 1500s?

Did Christ fail in his mission for those who believed in the Catholic Church till then? If so then Sola Scriptura renders “infallible scripture” suddenly fallable (e.g. verse Math 16:18). This pulverizes the argument for Sola Scriptura.

There is a telling argument against claims of “Bible Christians” (sola scriptura pundits). It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation. John Henry Newman explained it in an essay, written in 1884, titled Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation. You might want to read it here:

More here: Defending The Faith

QED
At face value Sola Scripture has neither face nor value since it cut’s its own nose off to spite its face.

Next topic.

God Bless,
James

 

[DarkMark]

Saint Irenaeus

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition…It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition”
Against Heresies 3,2:1

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"
Against Heresies 3,4:1

According to Irenaeus, Tradition is substantive in content, normative in authority and continues to live in the Apostolic churches. Trying to twist Irenaeus words to mean that he believe in Bible alone is what cults do to Scriptures.

“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,2:2

When Iraenaeue wrote Against Heresies is was to refute Gnosticism which claims to have secret teachings and traditions that only a few knew. Iraenaeus was agaisnt these types of Traditions.

“For Irenaeus, on the other hand, tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing.”
Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church, p139

I believe Joseph A. Gallegos wrote it very well, and I wish Old Scholar read this:

"There are a couple of recurring themes throughout the writings of the Church Fathers on the rule of faith. First, the Fathers affirmed that the most perfect expression of the Apostolic faith is to be found in Sacred Scripture. The Fathers affirmed the material sufficiency of Scripture. According to the Fathers, all doctrines of the Catholic faith are to be found within its covers. Secondly, the Fathers affirmed in the same breath and with equal conviction that the Apostolic faith also has been transmitted to the Church through Tradition. According to the Fathers, the Scriptures can only be interpreted within the Catholic Church in light of her Sacred Tradition. The Fathers, particularly those who combated heresies, affirmed that the fatal flaw of heretics was interpreting Scripture according to their private understanding apart from mother Church and her Tradition. In sum, when the Fathers affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, they did so not in a vacuum, but within the framework of an authoritative Church and Tradition." (cin.org/users/jgallegos/web.htm)).

 

[stfrancisway]

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you…(Matthew 23:1-2)

This is a good example of “Oral Tradition.” Nowhere in the whole OT is there this “Moses’ Seat.” This is completely oral tradition. Notice how Christ says “practice and observe.” Why do the crowds and disciples have to practice and observe? They,“the Pharisees,” sit on “Moses’ Seat.”

 

[DarkMark]

What did Tertullian believed?

“Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as ‘the sent.’ Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,–privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”
Tertullian, On Prescription Against the Heretics 20

“Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.”
Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church p.188

How can Old Scholar believe in Bible alone, when Scriptures never make that claim? How can Old Scholar believe in Bible alone, when the Apostle Paul told his followers to believe traditions + Scriptures? How can Old Scholar tried to proved that some Church Fathers believe in Bible alone, when all the Church Fathers disagree with his Protestant doctrine (i.e., Faith Alone, No Real Presence in the Eucharist, No Apostolic Succession, No Pope, etc)?

 

[Canto]

Jesus condems specific customs but in terms of the historical fact of oral tradition (Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians etc,) the bible commands tradition to us.

Paul says the scriptures that are inspired are great, but he never said the scriptures, the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures.

Paul says scripture AND traditon 2 Thess 2:14
He hands traditon on 2 Thess 3:6
Luke writes parts of it down Luke 1:1+
Early Christians followed tradition Acts 2:42
lots of things Jesus did aren’t written down John 21:25
John didn’t write everyting down John 20:30
The Holy Spirit will teach things to the Church in later times John 14:26
“Word” in scripture is usually oral 1 Thess 2:13
Some bits of scripture hard to understand 2 Peter 3:16
private interpreation of scripture is condemned 2 Peter 1:20
Guidance needed to understand scripture Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12
Who interprits it then? The Church Matt 18:17
Some Gospel quoted facts not in the Old Testament John 3:14 and Elijah’s prayer for eg James 5:17-18

Romans 10:17 Faith then, is by hearing: and hearing is by the word of Christ.

Why would Jesus put all his eggs in the Sola Scripture basket when upon his glorious assencion into heaven it is about another 1500 years till books can be printed (printing press) and about 1800+ years till most of the western world is able to read - becomes litterate. In some parts of the word illiteracy is still very high, how do these people know God? Oral preaching.

Martin Luther said “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Roman Catholics), that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.” (Ch 16 St John commentary)

 

[Tomster]

1 Timothy 3:16-17. A good place to start. What part of Scriptures is St. Paul referring to here? Is it the complete Old Testament and New Testament? Or is it just the Old Testament because the New Testament was not completed yet? If it was just the Old Testament that St. Paul was referring to you have just limited yourself, O.S., to searching through the Old Testament.

 

[Canto]

Sorry, just though of something.

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants all have different Old Testament cannons. If Jesus wanted Sola Scriptura wouldn’t you think He have told us which are the inspired books.

When Jesus debated using scipture He used whatever his opponent consided scripture. St. James in his epistle quotes the book of Enoch and the Assumtion of Moses.

Perhaps maybe the Catholic Church decided which books made up the Old and New Testaments in the late 300s, guided by the Holy Spirit and never changing this cannon. Matt 18:17 / John 14:26

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *because if they believe it, they can’t claim that the New Testament writers viewed certain *non-scriptural sources *as authoritative oral tradition. They have no precedent for the belief we should give the same consideration to church tradition if it can’t be proved by Scripture. Then they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself but scripture tells us otherwise.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).

Scripture is said to be “God-breathed.” Nothing else is given this designation. This term is never applied to “tradition.”

Yet we have God through Jesus breathing on the apostles after the resurrection. These are the very same men who started all the traditions and oral traditions that have already been cited here many times. These are the very same men who attest to the necessity of tradition and oral tradition.
John 20:21-23:

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Old Scholar it seems your fundamental issue is that you do not accept the power of The Holy Spirit nor have faith in Jesus’ teaching about the same. Yet this seems curious and perhaps even irrational since you would trust the early Church and God to hold truth safely via oral tradition for 400 years then at the instant The Church assembles the early bible you would refuse to listen to a single word their successor’s have to say. Instead you would then forget everything you heard and rely solely on the things that they wrote down! Does God’s word only become trustable when some scribe manages to sharpen his quill and get it all down on paper?

It just seems very peculiar that you can trust a closer source (bible) that is constructed by men who are not even in the scriptures to tell us what is scripture. How do you know the bible is not a lie?

At some point you have to admit that being a Christian requires a faith in God at every step in the Church formation (including its scripture and its cannon). Picking what source you want to believe would be merely a coin toss except for the fact that what tradition brings us are many consistent written accounts of the persecution of the early Church. Faith in both tradition and The Church then becomes compelled through the people who lived and died for the faith. Thus tradition, including the writing of the bible are written in both human blood and divine blood. That is consistent with everything prophesied in the old testament as well.

Either God is with us in His Church through Her teachings or He is not. If you suggest that God is not with us, then please point to where you think He is? And please don’t try to point to whatever version of the bible you carry in your hand since Jesus did not suffer and die for a book - he died for you and me.

I say God lives and breathes in each of us who keep ALL His teachings; and that means God lives within those who know how to read and in those who do not know how to read but can hear The Truth and taste and see what is Good (Eucharist).

James

 

[Hastrman]

Because it’s not in the Bible.

QED.

Oy weh, dies goyischer kopf…

 

[Tomster]

1 Timothy 3:16-17. A good place to start. What part of Scriptures is St. Paul referring to here? Is it the complete Old Testament and New Testament? Or is it just the Old Testament because the New Testament was not completed yet? If it was just the Old Testament that St. Paul was referring to you have just limited yourself, O.S., to searching through the Old Testament.

The earnest Protestant who goes directly to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit to himself, and the individual inquirer can be sure of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its divine author. This pretty much sums up Protestant belief in searching the Scriptures.

The flaw in the reasoning leads to the multiplicity of opinions and creeds in Protestantism, all of them based on the Bible.

But, you may say, the Bible says to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). No: “Search [scrutamini],” is in the indicative, not the imperative mood. It was NOT a command, but a rebuke, a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the Scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive Him to whom all these Scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have everlasting life. An accurate rendering of the rebuke from the original Aramaic to Greek, to Latin, to English, would read: “You search the Scriptures, looking for guidance to life; they give it, by bearing witness to me.” The passage from which the three words useful to Protestant dogma are taken begins at John 5:16, and only ends with verse 47, at the end of the chapter. Without the rest of the passage, the one phrase, three words out of twenty-two in the verse is easily misunderstood.

St. Paul says, “All Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), but does not tell us which books we are to accept as Scripture. The apostles were at the time writing what was to become that cherished collection. It is possible that no one had yet even thought of a “New Testament.” Before this name had come into use the writers of the latter half of the second century used to say “gospel and apostolic writings” or simply “the gospel and the apostle,” meaning the apostle Paul. The gospel is good news, glad tidings, Greek evangelion, Latin evangelium, English evangely or evangel. Gospel itself literall means the word of hearing, the word which is heard.

 

[Tomster]

Old Scholar,

BTW - Protestant do not agree on what their Rule of Faith is. Perhaps another thread.

 

[Philthy]

It is important for Roman Catholics to argue against *Sola Scriptura *…

Well, its important to argue against because it’s viewed as being false and because it has produced considerable bad fruit in the form of disunity.

…church tradition …can’t be proved by Scripture.

There is precedent - Moses’ seat would be a precedent for an authority apart from Scripture.

they claim that scripture is not sufficient in itself

but scripture tells us otherwise:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful …so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped …(1 Tim 3:16-17).

Notice how the term “in itself” is lacking from 2Tim3:16? That little detail changes what you “interpret” the verse to say, and what can reasonably be inferred from it.

Scripture is … “God-breathed

.” …This term is never applied to tradition All Scripture is God breathed - we all give that an Amen! The mind that you use to read and interpret Scripture is not infallible, and that is the problem with SS - it pretends that Scripture “alone” communicates a message when, in fact, it does not. It requires something apart from it to interpret and articulate that message. That’s why we put it in our native languages!

Paul gives this information to Timothy in order to instill confidence in the scriptures. Paul reminds Timothy of the “difficult” times coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise. (3:1-9). Timothy is told to stand firm in the things he has learned. Things known from the scriptures. Scripture is inspired and infallible and that can’t be applied to tradition.

Paul’s PRIMARY means of delivering the FULL truth to Timothy was by SPEAKING to him. Paul only wrote the letter “in case (he) was delayed” in visiting SO THAT Timothy would “know how to behave” in the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Roman Catholics cannot appeal to scriptures in this case because they already claim scripture alone is insufficient, even though it tells us it is sufficient.

This is a remarkable ironic claim for a SS adherent to make IMHO. If, in fact, SS is “sufficient” to produce a knowledge of the Christian faith, then why are there so many contradictory opinions among well-educated, God fearing, sincere, SS adherents? That, my friend, is a question worth reflecting upon before attempting to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

He can’t appeal to the early church fathers for a Roman Catholic belief because the Eastern Orthodox appeal to the same fathers for their tradition.

There is no profound disunity there. Certainly not like the disunity that is present not only between SS adherents and either of those ancient churches, but also among SS adherents themselves. I repeat: If SS is “sufficient” to produce a knowledge of the Christian faith, then why are there so many contradictory opinions among well-educated, God fearing, sincere, SS adherents as to what that faith is?

If the Roman Church viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a ”rule” or “Canon” of scripture? In that case there would be no need for scripture at all;

Here I believe you are actually correct! But the thing you fail to realize is that what you call “Scripture” is not, in fact, “Scripture” in the strictest sense. All of the original, “god breathed” writings(ie Scripture) of the New Testament are gone! All we have left are presumed copies of presumed writings - preserved and promulgated by…the Church. Apart from the authority of the Church to proclaim those copies as authentic, there really is no Scripture left.

it would be quite sufficient to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next.

Correct, but that doesnt mean that Scripture serves no purpose.

Protestants agree on what their rule of faith is

.
Not quite my friend - they merely agree on the SOURCE of their rule of faith, but the ESSENCE of the faith they disagree on profoundly.

What is your rule of faith, and how can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola scriptura

?
My rule of faith, like every non-Apostolic disciple of Christ, is faith in Christ as taught by His Church; corroborated by Scripture, by history and by the Saints. And this I believe “because (I) know whom (I) learned it from.”(cf 1Tim 2)