Why do Roman Catholics not accept Sola Scriptura?

[IronHammer]

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ.

This logic doesn’t wash. Based on your view, then, what happens to all the people who had sins that needed to be forgiven (or retained) after the last apostle died? See John 20:23
Old Scholar;3289530:

They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.

Again, why would Jesus fulfill the Old Covenant and start a new order but then completely rescind all authority and power of that church after the first generation?! That makes no sense at all!

The apostles could even raise the dead but that all died with them.

How do you know this? Can you prove it?

 

[CentralFLJames]

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ. They could appoint bishops but the bishops never had the authority to perform miracles or any of the things the apostles could do because the apostles could not pass on that authority.

The apostles could even raise the dead but that all died with them.

And God certainly has kept His church from error but He did not keep the ones who strayed from His written word. Unfortunately they have made their own “traditions,” and created purely non-scriptural doctrines. The early church fathers would “turn over” in their graves to see what has happened to their church.

This is a non-sequitur. When somone gives authority unconditionally it is given fully. Unless specifically held back as a pre-declared condition there is no such revealed concept divine nor human that limits “giving” to the person’s own life. Authority is a universal principal that does not perish and is in fact an inheritable thing. Authority is held centered within the corpus of the thing that wields it and becomes an essential attribute of that thing. Using an analogy of a person’s name it would become absurd to say that the child of “John” (i.e. John’s son) can not claim the name “Johnson” as His own simply because his father died. It is just as absurd to imagine that God gave to His Church a thing that a human could take away through simple fiat as you attempt to do here in the pithy and infantile logic.

Only God has the authority to take back a thing which He has given. When God takes back He does so in a profound way so that there is no mistaking the fact. Can you offer anything more substantial and profound than just your opinion as evidence that God has taken back any authority He has given to The Church through the apostolic succession and inheritance?

Jesus has warned what happens to those who try to steal the Kingdom of Heaven or break into His house through some other way:

John 10:1, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

I’d caution you against trying to promote ideas that attempt to steal things from God and His Church.

How do Protestants and non-Catholics repent and know that their sins are forgiven? By what authority do Protestants get their sins forgiven? Do they stand in a mirror of self reflection and say to themselves “I am sorry enough so I forgive myself of my sins?” The Jews crucified Jesus for having the audacity to forgive sins and He was God. Outside of the authority of The Church what makes Protestants think they can steal the authority to forgive themselves of sins?

James

 

[dwhtxsports]

Because it mentions her children for example in Matthew 13:55-56 1:19.

With all due respect, for someone who follows sola scriptura, how can you make a statement like the above? Nowhere in scripture does is there any mention of Mary having other children other than when Jesus told John to behold his mother at the Cross. If you are going to have any credibility at all in this argument on sola scriptura, you really should not add ANYTHING to Scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The apostles could even raise the dead but that all died with them.

And God certainly has kept His church from error but He did not keep the ones who strayed from His written word. Unfortunately they have made their own “traditions,” and created purely non-scriptural doctrines. The early church fathers would “turn over” in their graves to see what has happened to their church.

Don’t you find it ironic that the Apostles did not raise each other and the early laity from the dead to sustain the “real” Church with the same people of the first century?

I agree with you that God kept His Church from error but pruned away those who strayed from His Word by protesting it. Protestation has been a 500+ year old tradition in the Protestant branch that has been pruned away from God’s Church. It remains to be seen if they come back into the true vine of faith before they leave this world.

James

 

[Kay_Cee]

OS believes that only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the bible are trustworthy.

Except, apparently, what he claims is “the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’” I’ve asked over and over again where this is in scripture. First I was completely ignored. Then he told me* I* had to research *his *claim in order to disprove it, instead of him proving his claim. Now I’m being ignored again.

**OS doesn’t practice sola scriptura himself. **If he did, it would be a snap for him to back up his assertions from scripture alone. The fact that he has to throw the burden of proof for his claims onto me shows how weak and ungrounded his position is.

 

[Lampo]

What happened to the thread started by OS yesterday about “changing dogmas and doctrines”?

 

[Stephen_C]

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.

Well you see there’s the problem with Sola Scriptura. No matter how you define it, it is still your interpretation (looking at it through your eyes, mindset, and yes your filters)…or your Paster’s/Bible study’s interpretation. So what makes your interpretation better? Sola Scriptura was born out of the 16th century “reformation”. Since they had divorced themselves from the Catholic Church…they had to throw the “baby” out with the bath water… I could go on here but I don’t think it would do any good. :nope:

 

[Lampo]

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.

Is it possible it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture because it happened after the last book of the New Testament was written?

Oops…I read the above post too fast. Obviously, I thought OS said Assumption. My bad.

 

[Tomster]

Except, apparently, what he claims is “the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’” I’ve asked over and over again where this is in scripture. First I was completely ignored. Then he told me* I* had to research *his *claim in order to disprove it, instead of him proving his claim. Now I’m being ignored again.

**OS doesn’t practice sola scriptura himself. **If he did, it would be a snap for him to back up his assertions from scripture alone. The fact that he has to throw the burden of proof for his claims onto me shows how weak and ungrounded his position is.

Perhaps a word about the term “God-breathed.”

From the Catholic perspective, by examining all the organs of Tradition the Church can:

1. discover the truths living in the minds of the faithful
2. judge the records of the past to determine if a writer substituted his personal opinion for the true voice of Christendom
3. declare a disputed tenet to be or not to be part of the faith
4. reaffirm all past pronouncements.

But even if all monuments of past teaching and witnessing to the faith were lost, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.

Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.

Protestantism has failed miserably in this regard because it is substantially true to say that Protestantism as a form of Christianity is essentially changeable and unstable. Whatever stability individual sects may show, they owe to whatever doctrines or practices they still share in common with the Catholic Church. The instability of Protestantism is due to the strange concept of human autonomy which the Reformers injected into the body of Christian Tradition.

 

[Lampo]

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.

If one is “**Full **of grace”, doesn’t that imply that the person is full, therefore no room for anything else like sin? To the Church, that is a “hint” of her Immaculate Conception. Now, why is that interpretation wrong and yours right? Isn’t the Church founded by Jesus Christ guided by the Holy Spirit? And since the core of Sola Scriptura is that everyone has the right to interpret the Bible for themselves as long as they feel guided by the Holy Spirit, and since the Church is the pillar and bullwark of truth, aren’t we as Catholics right in listening to the Church in matters of faith and morals? The Dogma of the Immaculate conception falls into the category of faith.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Perhaps a word about the term “God-breathed.”

From the Catholic perspective, by examining all the organs of Tradition the Church can:

1. discover the truths living in the minds of the faithful
2. judge the records of the past to determine if a writer substituted his personal opinion for the true voice of Christendom
3. declare a disputed tenet to be or not to be part of the faith
4. reaffirm all past pronouncements.

But even if all monuments of past teaching and witnessing to the faith were lost, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.

Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.

Protestantism has failed miserably in this regard because it is substantially true to say that Protestantism as a form of Christianity is essentially changeable and unstable. Whatever stability individual sects may show, they owe to whatever doctrines or practices they still share in common with the Catholic Church. The instability of Protestantism is due to the strange concept of human autonomy which the Reformers injected into the body of Christian Tradition.

This is very well said, but my conversation with OS was about the canon. He said:

Originally Posted by Old Scholar forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You have some books written by God only knows who, but they have never claimed inspiration and certainly don’t fit the criteria to be “God-breathed.” You can’t call them Scripture.

I questioned his statement “the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’” I asked where such a thing is in scripture and how I could test a writing to determine if it is, in fact, ‘God-breathed.’ This is the point he seems incapable of addressing. I asked a week ago and have yet to receive an answer, except for him telling me the answer was in scripture but that I had to find it myself.

The fact that he cannot answer this question himself from scripture tells me he is appealing to an extra-Biblical source–his “criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”–in order to determine the canon. In other words, he is appealing to a tradition not found within scripture and is therefore not practicing sola scriptura himself.

If I’m wrong, it should be a simple matter for him to show me this “criterea to be ‘God-breathed’” in scripture by quoting book, chaper, and verse. After all, he must know what this criterea is, since he claims it exists. I’ve been waiting a week, and I’m still waiting.

 

[Tomster]

This is very well said, but my conversation with OS was about the canon. He said:

I questioned his statement “the criterea to be ‘God-breathed.’” I asked where such a thing is in scripture and how I could test a writing to determine if it is, in fact, ‘God-breathed.’ This is the point he seems incapable of addressing. I asked a week ago and have yet to receive an answer, except for him telling me the answer was in scripture but that I had to find it myself.

The fact that he cannot answer this question himself from scripture tells me he is appealing to an extra-Biblical source–his “criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”–in order to determine the canon. In other words, he is appealing to a tradition not found within scripture and is therefore not practicing sola scriptura himself.

If I’m wrong, it should be a simple matter for him to show me this “criterea to be ‘God-breathed’” in scripture by quoting book, chaper, and verse. After all, he must know what this criterea is, since he claims it exists. I’ve been waiting a week, and I’m still waiting.

Kay Cee,

Well said. The purpose of my last post was to show O.S. how Catholics view this matter.

You are right on target. The same Holy Spirit which inspired the writing of the sacred books prevented all error in their selection. On the final list were those her bishops decided were “the inspired word of God.” The Councils of Rome, Hippo and two in Carthage, recognized the 73 books of the Septuagint. That decision was reached WITHOUT consulting Holy Scripture, which offers nothing in the way of a list, is a strong argument for the fact that there are truths not contained in the Bible.

The Catholic Church is the only authority on what constitutes Holy Scripture. Protestants accept no book the Church rejected, and accept the books they have as Holy Scripture because the Church said they are genuine.

Of course, you will never get O.S. to admit it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The fact that he cannot answer this question himself from scripture tells me he is appealing to an extra-Biblical source–his “criterea to be ‘God-breathed’”–in order to determine the canon. In other words, he is appealing to a tradition not found within scripture and is therefore not practicing sola scriptura himself.

I think He is holding His breath here while he works up the courage to reveal to us who he imagines he really is.

It’s going to be very disappointing if we discover that when he finally does get around to taking his next breath to blow new truths our way that he reveals that god (little g) has a bad case of halitosis.

Personally I don’t expect a breath of fresh air from a person who ingests too much gnostic and nominalist junk food taken together with anti-Catholic bigotry. :dts:

James

 

[Newbie2]

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!

We didn’t stop accepting Scripture as the truth.

BTW, did you hang out with Iranaeus?

What you say is true except you forget that the apostles all died and with them died the authority given them by Christ.

Show me some scripture that says this directly?

And God certainly has kept His church from error but He did not keep the ones who strayed from His written word. Unfortunately they have made their own “traditions,” and created purely non-scriptural doctrines. The early church fathers would “turn over” in their graves to see what has happened to their church.

You knew them too?

Traditions are different from traditions. Hate to sound like a broken record, but you can’t seem to accept that. don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge that even though you don’t believe in the authority in Tradition? Stubborn?

 

[sodak]

Let’s see, strong opening statement, strong counter-arguments, then weaker and weaker protestations, followed by refusal to participate. This is the pattern that I’ve been seeing from people coming here trying to “save” Catholics.

The truth must really hurt!

 

[Old_Scholar]

guanophore

The Bishops did, and do, have apostolic authority. This may also come as a shock to you, but God still does work miracles through His people.

You just haven’t studied enough. The special authority of the apostles did end with the death of the apostles, and Scripture makes it clear to us.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Christ makes it clear here that it is to the apostles only because the world cannot receive the authority.

The apostles were trained to be teachers and evangelists for Christ after His death and resurrection. This was strictly a first century operation and not passed on to any successors.

Matt 16:18 * “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and **whatsoever thou ***shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and **whatsoever thou **shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matt 18:18 “Verily I say unto you, **Whatsoever ye shall bind **on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Christ gave this power only to the apostles, not only because they had the Holy Spirit teaching them but because they were eyewitnesses of the death and resurrection of Christ.

John 14:26 * “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”*

John 15:26* “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27) And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”*

It is obvious that the apostles were trained by Jesus to play a vital and unrepeatable role in the history of the church. The Holy Spirit still dwells in the church but there are no more apostles and since an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, none were left.

Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

No one living in the past 1800 years has seen the risen Jesus, it is impossible that during this period we should have “apostles.”

You are living in a fantasy world. The Bible is quite clear that the special powers and infallibility ended with the apostles.

 

[dwhtxsports]

OS, out of curiosity, what is it you think the handing of thr keys meant?

 

[loscampos]

[You are living in a fantasy world. The Bible is quite clear that the special powers and infallibility ended with the apostles.[/COLOR]

I have a brief question about this statement. If infallibility ended then who gave the catholic church the authority to make an infallible decision and put together the new testament? If the NT is authoritative and no one is allowed to add or take away, then when was the authority granted to the church to make an infallible decision?

 

[Church_Militant]

Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us

, 22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.This plainly indicates that apostles were (and are) a renewable resource, though there is never any question of the original twelve living forever.

You offer a lot of scripture that you assert only applied to the apostles yet the commission to bind and loose, and forgive or retains sins is useless if applied in that way. The clear intent of the Lord was that these things come down to us by apostolic succession as any objective reading of those passages will show.

No one living in the past 1800 years has seen the risen Jesus, it is impossible that during this period we should have “apostles.”

So you say… yet there are indeed those who have indeed “seen the risen Jesus” and though not all have been popes, your statement is still quite false. The holy lives of those who have is sufficient testimony that they encountered the risen Christ.

Do you accept Paul as an apostle? “One born out of time”? Yet according to you he could not have been an apostle, even though he lived in the immediate post Ascension era.

Furthermore, Ephesians 4 says, 11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together, by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in charity. Nowhere in there does Paul even imply an end to apostles as you assert, but lists them all as ongoing parts and vital members of the body of Christ. Your misinterpretation contradicts the Word of God.

You are living in a fantasy world.

I could validly assert the same thing of you. Especially since I just refuted you by the Word of God which you claim is your sole authority.

The Bible is quite clear that the special powers and infallibility ended with the apostles

This is nothing more than further rhetorical propaganda that draws a conclusion from man made misinterpretations of scripture and not the scriptures themselves.:bible1:

 

[epostle]

You just haven’t studied enough. The special authority of the apostles did end with the death of the apostles, and Scripture makes it clear to us.

Wrong. The Mormons make the same claim and neither you or them have any historical evidence to support this theory. Just scriptural contortions

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

There is nothing in this verse that indicates, remotely, indirectly, or implicitly, the authority of the Apostles ended with their deaths.

Christ makes it clear here that it is to the apostles only because the world cannot receive the authority.

Neither can you. How can the comforter abide with them forever on earth after they died? If Jesus promised to be with them until the end of the age, how could the Apostles live to the end of the age? Succession is the only logical answer.

The apostles were trained to be teachers and evangelists for Christ after His death and resurrection. This was strictly a first century operation and not passed on to any successors.

Then why did the Church fill the empty seat held by Judas by electing Mathias in Acts 1?

Matt 16:18 …“19” Matt 18:18 “

Christ gave this power only to the apostles, not only because they had the Holy Spirit teaching them but because they were eyewitnesses of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Show me where the term “only” is used, or even infered, in any of your verses. You will not answer this question because you have no answer, and will jump to another topic.

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27) And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”

It is obvious that the apostles were trained by Jesus to play a vital and unrepeatable role in the history of the church. The Holy Spirit still dwells in the church but there are no more apostles and since an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, none were left.

There are no more of the original 12, but their offices have to have successors or it is not an office. Your claim that the office of bishop has no successors is anti-biblical, because an office without successors is not an office. Col 1:25, and Heb. 7:23 refutes any cults abolishment of bishops.

Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Yet you claim that Judas held no office that requires successors.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

No one living in the past 1800 years has seen the risen Jesus, it is impossible that during this period we should have “apostles.”

If witnessing the risen Christ is a criteria for being an Apostle, then the hundreds of people who saw Him are all Apostles. Your conclusion is absurd. We are all witnesses WITH THE APOSTLES, so your use of “witness” is grossly flawed.

You are living in a fantasy world. The Bible is quite clear that the special powers and infallibility ended with the apostles.

This is how you make the Bible “quite clear”.

Matthew 27:5 Judas went away and hung himself,
Luke 10:37 “Go and do likewise.”