Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerofTruth27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Catholics hold that scripture is not itself the final norm, but one of three, including sacred tradition and the pope and magisterium.
I do not “reject” the CC, but it is not hermeneutics that for me is church dividing.
Example: I do not believe that from scripture or even tradition of the early Church that the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction.
The Augsburg Confession lays our differences out.

Jon

Edit: I am not here trying to explain Catholic practice.
Click to expand...
Again wrong. The Pope and Magesterium cannot
operate independently of Scripture and Tradition.
So perhaps you could take it again from the top
in light of that. For something to be true and stated
by the Pope and Magesterium it must be supported by
a. Scripture, B. Tradition.
How does the RC differ than from the Lutheran
in this matter?
 
CaliLobo said:
As a former Protestant, for me, what else logically is there?
  1. Sola Scriptura sounds so concisely beautiful, it has to be true.
  2. There is nothing in the Bible that mandates that we HAVE to follow manmade tradition, or even Holy Tradition. Paul tells one of the churches to keep holding onto what they were taught, but what is that they were taught? The insistence on adhering to Holy Tradition is driving many away from the Catholic Church and into Evangelical churches, where many feel that they have experienced God for the first time. The faster growth of the Evangelical churches proves that maybe Evangelical churches got something right.
  3. It is difficult to follow a Magisterium that has committed crimes against humanity and continues to adhere to archaic policies on abortion, gay rights, and contraception. Placing faith in the Magisterium leaves one vulnerable to institutional abuses. Protestants, because we are all priests, believe it is entirely appropriate to read, interpret, and discuss the Bible by and among themselves.
  4. The fact that the Catholic Church has changed doctrines, disciplines, and traditions over the years undermines the idea that the Magisterium and Holy Tradition are the same things taught by Jesus. Are we really saying that today’s Mass is the same thing that the early Christians did in Acts? Example: Vatican II.
Click to expand...
1.Beauty is not necessary to perfection or correctness.
2. A. If tradition is God’s tradition it should
always be followed correct? I.e. Last Supper. B. the
fact that people prefer their own opinions to God’s and
their own ways to God’s is not indicative that there
is something wrong with God. We have it from Christ
Himself that His way will be UN popular, yes. So the
very popularity of a particular movement would cause
me grave concern as a Christian.
3. The answer to three lies in two, does it not?
4. Yes the Mass before Vatican II is the exact
same Mass as after Vatican II. Let me ask you
this? Would the Last Supper of Jesus changed and
the Sacrifice less if Jesus spoke English rather than
Swahili? Or Tagalog instead of Spanish? Or if the table
upon which He broke the bread faced another way?

If Christ’s Sacrifice changes in efficacy and content
because He spoke Latin instead of Hebrew or faced
North rather than East, than His Sacrifice was paltry
indeed.
If the Sacrifice of Christ does NOT change according
to these things than either did the Mass after
Vatican II.
 
marywarfield said:
The Pope and Magesterium cannot
operate independently of Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t our viewpoint some 500 years ago - when confronted with the abuses, the Pope and Magisterium replied with ex-concuunications and anathemas. Some of the Magisterium continued with us.

From our standpoint, those abuses were contrary to Scripture, so we clung tenaciously to God’s Word while the world stormed around us.

Now it can be argued that we still rely on God’s Word with too much vinegar and vigor - but that a different conversation.
 
benjohnson said:
That wasn’t our viewpoint some 500 years ago - when confronted with the abuses, the Pope and Magisterium replied with ex-concuunications and anathemas. Some of the Magisterium continued with us.

From our standpoint, those abuses were contrary to Scripture, so we clung tenaciously to God’s Word while the world stormed around us.

Now it can be argued that we still rely on God’s Word with too much vinegar and vigor - but that a different conversation.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who “our” refers to here so can’t make
heads or tails. Who is "our "?
 
marywarfield said:
Again wrong. The Pope and Magesterium cannot
operate independently of Scripture and Tradition.
So perhaps you could take it again from the top
in light of that. For something to be true and stated
by the Pope and Magesterium it must be supported by
a. Scripture, B. Tradition.
How does the RC differ than from the Lutheran
in this matter?
Click to expand...
Wrong again about what? I didn’t say that the pope and Magisterium operate independently of scripture. Read my post again.
But since you seem to think I have it wrong, why not save us the time and explain it. You have the outline of our practice of the hermeneutical principle in my recent post, and you are a Catholic and should have a better understanding of the procedure. I look forward to your insight.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Wrong again about what? I didn’t say that the pope and Magisterium operate independently of scripture. Read my post again.
But since you seem to think I have it wrong, why not save us the time and explain it. You have the outline of our practice of the hermeneutical principle in my recent post, and you are a Catholic and should have a better understanding of the procedure. I look forward to your insight.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon the Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition act
as ONE unified organism when putting forth doctrine
on faith and morals. For Ben Johnson’s sake let me
repeat DOCTRINE not penal actions for a thieving
priest or some nonsense.

Now you keep suggesting that somehow Lutheran
and RC are one holy Catholic Church. Yet when I
ask you if that is so why are you attending Lutheran
instead if RC you give me a repeat of Scripture and
Tradition as if somehow there is a difference. And this
last go round you threw in the Magesterium for
good measure?
My question to you was very simple: if all is so
one hunza God here, why are you Lutheran and
not RC? YOU?

Remember the organic whole here: the Church codified
Scripture finally in 397. Anything that could not be
supported by practical, of known, or oral tradition
was NOT included. Therefore our view of Scripture is
very clear- the Scripture must be found in Tradition and the
Tradition must be found in Scriptures and THEN
and only then can the Magesterium declare it true
and worthy of belief. Scripture and Tradition stand
independently of the Magesterium but the Magesterium
does not stand independently of Scripture and Tradition.
 
benjohnson said:
That wasn’t our viewpoint some 500 years ago - when confronted with the abuses, the Pope and Magisterium replied with ex-concuunications and anathemas. Some of the Magisterium continued with us.

From our standpoint, those abuses were contrary to Scripture, so we clung tenaciously to God’s Word while the world stormed around us.

Now it can be argued that we still rely on God’s Word with too much vinegar and vigor - but that a different conversation.
Click to expand...
A Lutheran. I’m sorry I know if no one anywhere
at any time that was declared anathema or excommunicated
for bringing abuses to the Magesterium.
Please clarify.

To my knowledge people are only declared anathema
or excommunicated when they attempt to change the
actual doctrinal teachings or articles of faith of the Church without
permission from the Church such as declaring abortion
a good thing or insisting that Christ was not both
human or divine.

So you will have to give me an example of your
assertion.
 
=marywarfield;11825419]Jon the Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition act
as ONE unified organism when putting forth doctrine
on faith and morals. For Ben Johnson’s sake let me
repeat DOCTRINE not penal actions for a thieving
priest or some nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think that’s what I said.
Now you keep suggesting that somehow Lutheran
and RC are one holy Catholic Church. Yet when I
ask you if that is so why are you attending Lutheran
instead if RC you give me a repeat of Scripture and
Tradition as if somehow there is a difference. And this
last go round you threw in the Magesterium for
good measure?
Click to expand...
Recognizing that we are one Holy Church does not ignore the divisions between us. I am Lutheran for a number of reasons, primarily doctrine, specifically the Catholic teaching that the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary jurisdiction.
Remember the organic whole here: the Church codified
Scripture finally in 397. Anything that could not be
supported by practical, of known, or oral tradition
was NOT included. Therefore our view of Scripture is
very clear- the Scripture must be found in Tradition and the
Tradition must be found in Scriptures and THEN
and only then can the Magesterium declare it true
and worthy of belief. Scripture and Tradition stand
independently of the Magesterium but the Magesterium
does not stand independently of Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
We disagree that the canon of scripture was finally codified in 397, but otherwise that seems to be what I understand Catholic teaching to be.
So, I’m not sure what the question is.

Jon
 
Convert2013 said:
And then who preached and taught after they died and before the New Testament was compiled? It was a couple of hundred years after they would have died that the New Testament was compiled, right? So this information would have been handed down multiple times without it in writing, at least in one document and mass produced. Do you think they believed in Sola Scriptura? Why is it that the documents of the New Testament were written in the first place? Jesus didn’t say “write this…” He said “Do this…”
Click to expand...
Um . . . Last apostle died before 100 A.D. so were the books written in 397? Fact is the scripture was written and read before the apostles died the reason for cannonizing was to refute spurious documents and heresies!!! So many have this view that there is a 3 century vacuum in which no one was able to read what was wrote. Go ahead take a look at the early church fathers were they just preaching? Or perhaps referring to the books we call Scripture.
 
GraceofGod31 said:
Um . . . Last apostle died before 100 A.D. so were the books written in 397? Fact is the scripture was written and read before the apostles died the reason for cannonizing was to refute spurious documents and heresies!!! So many have this view that there is a 3 century vacuum in which no one was able to read what was wrote. Go ahead take a look at the early church fathers were they just preaching? Or perhaps referring to the books we call Scripture.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me the Apostles and their disciples
read their Gospels to their faithful? What did they say?
St. John: A reading from my Gospel called
The Gospel of St. John. It’s almost done its just my
scribe lost two of the papyri and ran out of ink?
 
marywarfield said:
Jon the Magesterium, Scripture and Tradition act
as ONE unified organism when putting forth doctrine
on faith and morals. For Ben Johnson’s sake let me
repeat DOCTRINE not penal actions for a thieving
priest or some nonsense.

Now you keep suggesting that somehow Lutheran
and RC are one holy Catholic Church. Yet when I
ask you if that is so why are you attending Lutheran
instead if RC you give me a repeat of Scripture and
Tradition as if somehow there is a difference. And this
last go round you threw in the Magesterium for
good measure?
My question to you was very simple: if all is so
one hunza God here, why are you Lutheran and
not RC? YOU?

Remember the organic whole here: the Church codified
Scripture finally in 397. Anything that could not be
supported by practical, of known, or oral tradition
was NOT included. Therefore our view of Scripture is
very clear- the Scripture must be found in Tradition and the
Tradition must be found in Scriptures and THEN
and only then can the Magesterium declare it true
and worthy of belief. Scripture and Tradition stand
independently of the Magesterium but the Magesterium
does not stand independently of Scripture and Tradition.
Click to expand...
So where did the magesterium find the authority in tradition or scripture to condone the selling of indulgences to build Saint Peter’s Basilica? Is this one organism schizophrenic disregarding the other parts of the whole.
 
Convert2013 said:
It (Sola Scriptura) is a doctrine that defeats itself! If it never says it in the Scriptures, then how can one believe in it if they subscribe to Sola Scriptura? :confused:

Please read this entire article…
ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

“All of that sounds fine at first glance, but upon inspection, this
framework collapses. First, if “the whole counsel of God . . . is
either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then
must itself appear somewhere in Scripture, but it does not. And
thus, under the terms set forth in all the classical Protestant
creeds, it is a self-refuting proposition.”
Click to expand...
So under that premise the words Trinity, Pope, Purgatory, and Sacraments are not found in Scripture!!! Yet the bible does teach throughout that God is triune and that sacraments were instituted( both I think you agree scripture teaches with out using those words). Under that premise how does the Papacy and Purgatory hold up?
 
GraceofGod31 said:
Um . . . Last apostle died before 100 A.D. so were the books written in 397? Fact is the scripture was written and read before the apostles died the reason for cannonizing was to refute spurious documents and heresies!!! So many have this view that there is a 3 century vacuum in which no one was able to read what was wrote. Go ahead take a look at the early church fathers were they just preaching? Or perhaps referring to the books we call Scripture.
Click to expand...
What we (after the fact) call the Old Testament books were circulating. A few hundred other religious books were also circulating. Some identifiable human agency - not the Bible itself or the “community” - had to make an authoritative decision that:
  1. A “New Testament ought to exist”;
  2. The “Old Testament” will continue to be regarded as Scripture by Christians;
  3. These 27 books will be considered inspired; all other candidates are rejected from the New Testament, though they may have their merits;
  4. The Canon is now closed.(!)
    All of these positions are controversial, none were obvious at the time, all were attacked by many, perhaps most ancient Christians. All 4 decisions came through the Magisterium, from God. Even if you say the Canon-deciders - Pope and bishops - were guided by Tradition, keep in mind the Magisterium decided that only 1 % of extant Christian traditions are extremely reliable. Catholics, and Protestants today, accept that.
    #3 and #4 are attacked today, and a few denominations are starting to slide. They are dropping some of Paul’s epistles, and adding a few gospels, etc.
If you think #3 and #4 are important enough to defend, take a closer look at the Magisterium, which is what they are standing on. If it was a channel used by God then, God might have used it since then. I believe in a few years Christians who still hold to the Magisterium’s chosen 27 NT books will be ridiculed as fundamentalists.
 
GraceofGod31 said:
So where did the magesterium find the authority in tradition or scripture to condone the selling of indulgences to build Saint Peter’s Basilica? Is this one organism schizophrenic disregarding the other parts of the whole.
Click to expand...
Was the building of St. Peters Basilica an article of
faith or doctrine? No. It has never stated in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church that a. You will give money
for indulgences or be excommunicated b. you will
pay for St. Peters Basilica or be excommunicated, c.
you must believe and do both or go to hell.

Now- you made the claim that people were
declared anathema or excommunicated for
bringing abuses to attention.

I am still waiting for you to give me
ONE example of a person this happened to when
they objected to abuses…Ever…in two thousand years…
just one name, one person.
 
steido01 said:
Then you’ve been listening to the wrong Protestants. Lutherans have always believed it. Ben is paraphrasing from Article VII of the Augsburg Confession:
Click to expand...
I certainly have. I only know one Lutheran lady and she is not quite receptive of the Catholic Church.

I had a problem with a Pentecostal who always criticised the Church and a Baptist friend who came over two or three times a week and always kept bagging the Catholics.

I do have some protestant and even atheist friends who do not say anything.

I myself do not bag any religion. I feel that everyone has a right to practise whatever they feel comfortable with.
 
GraceofGod31 said:
So under that premise the words Trinity, Pope, Purgatory, and Sacraments are not found in Scripture!!! Yet the bible does teach throughout that God is triune and that sacraments were instituted( both I think you agree scripture teaches with out using those words). Under that premise how does the Papacy and Purgatory hold up?
Click to expand...
Sacrament- Latin-Sacramentum-Solemn oath
Latin- Sacer- Sacred
Latin- Sacaro- to hallow

Purgatory- Latin- purgatorious- to purify
Pope- Greek Papas- Father

Not understanding the issue here. Is it that the
English translation does not contain the words
or that the words come from the original Greek and
Latin. Because I can’t believe you or anyone
else dispute they are in Scripture.
 
marywarfield said:
Was the building of St. Peters Basilica an article of
faith or doctrine? No. It has never stated in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church that a. You will give money
for indulgences or be excommunicated b. you will
pay for St. Peters Basilica or be excommunicated, c.
you must believe and do both or go to hell.

Now- you made the claim that people were
declared anathema or excommunicated for
bringing abuses to attention.

I am still waiting for you to give me
ONE example of a person this happened to when
they objected to abuses…Ever…in two thousand years…
just one name, one person.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Waiting for Ben to do so but GraceofGod replied with
the building of a basilica with prayer indulgences. Wrong. No
one has ever been excimmunicated for objecting to Basilica building.
Lol.

So opening to all- this claim has been made- any takers? Proofs?
Anything?
 
marywarfield said:
I am still waiting for you to give me
ONE example of a person this happened to when
they objected to abuses…Ever…in two thousand years…
just one name, one person.
Click to expand...
From Exsurge Domene

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

“17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.”

And the following excommunication:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

…

From the Lutheran standpoint the quid-pro-quo is rather straight froward - point out abuses and receive excommunication and be subject to immediate death as an outlaw. I understand that the Catholic viewpoint is different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top