Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Per_Crucem]

I agree on Matthew 18. Only Peter was given the keys, as per scripture and as per history.

I would say the two are connected. To have the keys is to bind and loose sins. The office of the ministry is what possesses the keys.

Regarding the early church, we must be talking about two different churches. What was the majority position of the early CC in your opinion?

There wasn’t. J. N. D. Kelly addresses this (I will try and get references later). About 1/3 held each to Peter being the rock, Peter’s confession being the rock, or Christ being the rock. So 2/3rds of the fathers did not hold to Peter being the rock. Hardly the unanimity of opinion that Vatican I stated.

You forgot to answer my question: Do you believe that the following words (spoken to Peter and the apostles, respectively) apply to Peter’s successor (Matthew 16) and the successors of the apostles (Matthew 18)? Or, do they apply to every Christian?

I would say they apply to the office of the ministry. To each Christian to a degree, yes. But it is exercised among the church through the office.

 

[Faithdancer]

Because the Bible is inspired, sufficient and infallible. Everything else is an add on, made by human beings and is not the God-breathed Word, not sufficient and not infallible.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Because the Bible is inspired, sufficient and infallible. Everything else is an add on, made by human beings and is not the God-breathed Word, not sufficient and not infallible.

Interesting. Besides the fact that scripture never describes itself as completely sufficient, and also doesn’t even define it’s own canon, if something is infallible, but contains obscure meaning and is thus subject to fallible interpretation (or rather, MUST be subject to fallible human interpretation, as scripture doesn’t interpret itself or even attest to its own canon), what good is infallibility (inerrancy, more accurately)? Wouldn’t it be like God giving us something perfect, and then not giving us the ability to use it as he intended? Seems shortsighted on God’s part.

 

[benjohnson]

Because the Bible is inspired, sufficient and infallible. Everything else is an add on, made by human beings and is not the God-breathed Word, not sufficient and not infallible.

If I remember, there are books that are God-breathed but outside of canon of the Bible - for example the Didache.

 

[Convert2013]

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.

Respectfully, I did not say written, I said “compiled” referring to the NT. I know when the NT scriptures were written. Think about it logically. They were written down (dictated & scribed). Then how many copies were made, how were they made and how long would it have taken? Now they have to be distributed. Even then, all of what was written was not in one “document” if you will, which we call the NT. At some point the Church decided what was to be put into the NT which we call the “Scriptures”. Anything left out, would you call that Scripture now? So the Scriptures as we know it were not existing (as the NT) until when? A few hundred years later. So I’ll ask you, when did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura first come into existence? Certainly not before “Scripture” (NT) existed.

Also what about all the things Jesus said and did which were not written down and we know there was a lot as discussed at the end of the Gospel of John for example. I can not possibly imagine that’s not true as its in the Scripture and if you subscribe to Sola Scriptura, then you must believe in it. Do you think any of the things that Jesus said & did and things he taught were not handed down verbally? I do not believe that what we have in the NT are the only things He said and did. That’s only logical but again the Scriptures tell us this.

I can not accept that true Christianity did not exist until Martin Luther suddenly decided that he knew more than 1500+ years of Scripture AND Tradition.

 

[commenter]

To start, I would say, in reference to the Scriptures you quoted that the understanding you hold to, and which was defined at Vatican I, was the minority position in the early church.
.

Even if you were right that regarding the Pope as the successor of Peter was the minority position in the early church, so what? There were many different Christian theologies in the first few centuries, most of which we (later, in hindsight) consider heresies. But they called themselves Christians not heretics. The Magisterium’s choice of specific 27 books for the NT was likely a minority position. But Sola Scriptura supporters today accept that minority position. They don’t use other books that many, perhaps most ancient Christians, may have considered inspired.

The Magisterium rejected the vast majority of early Christian traditions, and perhaps the great majority of early Christian scholars, as unreliable. Sola Scriptura supporters today accept the Magisterium’s narrowing down of what constitutes “orthodox Christian tradition”. That’s why Sola Sciptura posters on CAF, or elsewhere, never use the Gnostics for instance to support their position, nor do they feel the need to refute the Gnostics, because the Magisterium ruled out Gnostic scripture and tradition, and most other Christian traditions. A few Christians today (like the JW’s) still go outside the Magisterium-approved tradition, borrowing ideas from the other early Christian traditions. Evangelicals call those modern groups “cults”. Evangelicals indirectly support the Magisterium, even if they don’t know that term or argue against it.

During Arius’ lifetime his views may have been the majority, and support for the Magisterium the minority position. That did not make the Magisterium less authoritative - then or now.

Like C. S. Lewis, my prayer is that Sola Scriptura Christians and Magisterium Christians will come to understand each other, what he wanted as not High Church or Low Church, but Deep Church. We need that alliance now more than ever, in ways that even he did not foresee in the 1940s.

 

[CaliLobo]

Beauty isn’t always an indication of truth.

While I agree with Sola Scripture, this argument only makes me suspicious; Many ugly people have beautiful hearts and beauty is a mask worn often by the Deceiver.

Okay fine. But I am telling you why Protestants believe in it. We are taught it by our pastors, and there appears to be no way for us to challenge 2 Timothy 3.

Popularity doesn’t equate to truth. The truth exists independently of how many people perceive it.

Could you answer where in the Bible does it mandate us to follow Holy Tradition?

Difficulty in following truth is not an indication at all of it’s validity - and the contrast you made with modern temporarily pleasures of meaningless sex makes highlights this.

Could you answer how to avoid institutional abuses as a Catholic person? And do you agree that all believers are priests, and that it is appropriate for believers to read, interpret, and discuss the Bible by and among themselves?

commenter:

Is it “archaic” to oppose killing a child in the womb because of public opinion?
The Magisterium is not affected by what is popular or unpopular, that reflects the Media, not truth. In the United States, there is a culture war between those who follow the Media, and those who follow the Magisterium.

That’s the thing. The Bible does not say anything on point with respect to abortion. So if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then it is not required of you to oppose abortion politically. Popularity of abortion laws is irrelevant.

marywarfield:

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?

1. I understand, but even the Catholics admire the beauty of their churches. So beauty does play a role.

2-3. I’m not saying popularity is relevant. But once again, where does it mandate that we have to follow tradition? In the same way that Paul immersed himself in the cultures that he evangelized to, shouldn’t we adapt God’s teachings to make themselves relevant to today’s society? This is where Protestants disagree. We should not have to adhere to tradition so strictly that today’s people are not willing to listen to it.

1. There is no possible way today’s Mass is the same as that of Acts, simply due to the passage of time. For example, look up Ne Temere, in which the Catholic Church changed its standards on what constitutes a valid marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. And today, Francis is meeting with his cardinals to discuss possible pathways for divorced people to once again get Communion. If the Church is capable of changing its teaching on marriage and divorce, then it means that Tradition can be broken after all and the Magisterium can be changed. Which leaves only the Bible–Sola Scriptura.

And in Vatican II, it’s not just about vernacular languages. Vatican II was also about ecumenicalism (instead of a spirit of war against other religions) and relaxing the idea that outside of the Church there is no salvation (which ironically, Protestant churches still believe). If the Church can change is teaching on these things, it means that Tradition can be broken after all and the Magisterium can be changed. Which leaves only the Bible–Sola Scriptura.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Even if you were right that regarding the Pope as the successor of Peter was the minority position in the early church, so what?

The position of the early church was that every bishop was a successor to Peter. Strictly speaking, the Orthodox are right on this point. The fact of the matter is, though, that in Vatican I, the “infallible” canons stated it has always and everywhere been the position of the church that the Pope is successor to Peter, who was the rock, and has universal jurisdiction, etc. etc. It’s a manifestly false assertion.

There were many different Christian theologies in the first few centuries, most of which we (later, in hindsight) consider heresies. But they called themselves Christians not heretics. The Magisterium’s choice of specific 27 books for the NT was likely a minority position. But Sola Scriptura supporters today accept that minority position. They don’t use other books that many, perhaps most ancient Christians, may have considered inspired.

The “magisterium” didn’t choose 27 books until 1546. If by magisterium you mean a council or official proclamation.

 

[marywarfield]

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience.** He was not a heretic in matters of faith**. The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther’s monument at Worms as a reputed “forerunner of the Reformation” is entirely unwarranted. "

If he was not a heretic in matters of faith, per the CE. Can you tell us WHY he was excommunicated and murdered by the Borgia Pope?

The article specifically states why. Read it.

 

[joe371]

The article specifically states why. Read it.

:yup:

 

[marywarfield]

In response to Calilobo-

I’m only going to address a couple things here:

The question was wouldn’t we agree that all are priests
and it is appropriate for the people to read, interpret and discuss
the Bible?

My answer: yes but with a caveat- some accepted
authority must be accessible in interpretation. Interpretation
of what is read is the biggest issue today with Sola
Scriptura. Catholics read the Bible at every Mass. Even if
they never open it once at home at the end of a three year
cycle they will have read the entire Bible word for word. Obviously
if you are close to sixty like me you will have read the Bible
cover to cover twenty times. Great. But then there
is Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist. Totally sure
Phelps read the Bible cover to cover MORE than twenty
times in his life. And it caused him to engage in
very bloodthirsty absolutely hate filled activity. Some
of the worst behaviors I have ever witnessed out of
someone claiming action in Christ’s name. What’s
the difference? Phelps self interpreted the Scripture
cherry picking that “which spoke to him” as he put it.
When Catholics engage in Lectio Divina we also
meditate on that “which speaks to us”. But we don’t
just do that with passages that underscore our racism
or our homophobia or our nationalism. We have a central
authority that keeps us from going bonkers fanatic
and keeps us from further evolution of our personal
psychosis if you will…
Phelps and MOST Solas reject central authorities
in interpretation relying entirely on themselves.
You want to be Sola? Sure be my guest. But before
you lock yourself in a compound in Texas or threaten
gay men in the street, consult some authority who
is actually recognized in interpretation.

Second statement: if the Church has changed its teaching on
marriage and divorce…then it must be able to
change Tradition to (paraphrasing here make it more
appealing?)

My answer: a. the Church has not changed its position
on marriage and divorce and never will. That is a false
Rumor circulating in the media. The reason is it
can’t change it’s position because the position is
clear from BOTH Scripture and Tradition. BOTH.
We all know what Christ had to say about adultery
and that case closed two thousand years ago.

In the case you cite- the prohibition against mixed marriages
being dropped- yes that could happen and did because
there was nothing in Christ’s teaching clearly telling
us all not to marry outside of the faith.

B. Two types of tradition in the Church- big Traditions
and little. Rosaries, devotions etc are little traditions.
Not articles of faith that all Catholics ate required to
profess. A person can live his whole life and never say
or own a Rosary. Those types of traditions are subject
to change like removing altar rails in Varican II or
speaking English instead of Latin. These things all
have to do with cultural customs and not necessarily
Biblical. And subject to change. Nowhere in the Bible
does Christ say speak Latin.

Big traditions are things like Purgatory, the Apostilic
Succession, Communion of Saints, baptism for the
Forgiveness of sins, permanence of sacramental
marriage etc etc. these things will never be subject
to change because they aren’t just cultural traditions-
they are Articles of the Faith or come from the
Articles of Faith and are all Biblically based.
The Bible can’t be changed in Catholicism. What
you see is what you get. Nothing can ever be added or
subtracted or disputed in authority. And Jesus clearly
said no to adultery.

c. It’s not the job of the Catholic Church to be “appealing”.
We can’t change the Faith to make it more
appealing to this generation anymore than the
Apostles could change it to make it appealing to
the Roman gladiators.

 

[joe371]

Interesting. Besides the fact that scripture never describes itself as completely sufficient, and also doesn’t even define it’s own canon, if something is infallible, but contains obscure meaning and is thus subject to fallible interpretation (or rather, MUST be subject to fallible human interpretation, as scripture doesn’t interpret itself or even attest to its own canon), what good is infallibility (inerrancy, more accurately)? Wouldn’t it be like God giving us something perfect, and then not giving us the ability to use it as he intended? Seems shortsighted on God’s part.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Mary,
Looking past the mockery, no they didn’t do that. Pauline epistles were what exactly? Letters! What does one do with a letter? Read it of course.

The Apocalypse of John written in 98 and the four Gospels written no latter then 70 were written and kept in isolated library in Nicea until 398 I guess. Were early church fathers appealing to oral tradition and the scriptures? Yes, were they teaching about purgatory, indulgences, faith plus works equals salvation, the 5th Marian dogma? Nope, all much later additions to the church and all reasons one’s conscience should weigh heavily why someone should be believed if they teach as such. From my study two of the three parts (Scripture and Tradition) disagree with the magesterium on those examples. I guess the “whole organism” unlike the Trinity are not one but schizophrenic.

In the matter of faith and works, not only James and Scriptures disagree with you but also
Clement, 4th Bishop of Rome:

CHAPTER 32 – WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

CHAPTER 33 – BUT LET US NOT OWE UP THE PRACTICE OF GOOD WORKS AND LOVE. GOD HIMSELF IS AN EXAMPLE TO US OF GOOD WORKS.

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him – the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: “Let us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them.” Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, “Increase and multiply.” We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

CHAPTER 34 – GREAT IS THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS WITH GOD. JOINED TOGETHER IN HARMONY, LET US IMPLORE THAT REWARD FROM HIM.

The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will. For the Scripture says, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood around Him, and thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and cried, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Sabaoth; the whole creation is full of His glory.” And let us therefore, conscientiously gathering together in harmony, cry to Him earnestly, as with one mouth, that we may be made partakers of His great and glorious promises. For [the Scripture] says, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, the things which He has prepared for those who wait for Him.”

Early Church Fathers about purgatory

I don’t know of any ECF’s on indulgences and the 5th Marian dogma.

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem

There wasn’t. J. N. D. Kelly addresses this (I will try and get references later). About 1/3 held each to Peter being the rock, Peter’s confession being the rock, or Christ being the rock. So 2/3rds of the fathers did not hold to Peter being the rock. Hardly the unanimity of opinion that Vatican I stated.

J.N.D. Kelly shows proof that Simon is the Rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Plus, it just makes grammatical sense: You are cephas and on this cephas…

I would say they apply to the office of the ministry. To each Christian to a degree, yes. But it is exercised among the church through the office.

The Catholic Church office…

 

[Per_Crucem]

Per Crucem

J.N.D. Kelly shows proof that Simon is the Rock on which Jesus’ church is built. Plus, it just makes grammatical sense: You are cephas and on this cephas…

The point is not that the interpretation is right. It very well could be. The point is, the majority of the early church didn’t interpret it that way.

 

[joe371]

The point is not that the interpretation is right. It very well could be. The point is, the majority of the early church didn’t interpret it that way.

I see just the opposite…Can you show me some proof that the majority of the early catholic church did not view Peter as the Rock, but rather his confession…?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

The article specifically states why. Read it.

LOL. It doesn’t say he was tortured and executed because of heretical ideas, in fact the article declares him NOT a heretic in matters of faith. He was excommunicated because he strongly criticized the vices of the powers that be in Florence and the Borgia Pope. They told him to shut up and stop rocking the boat, and he refused. That earned him the popes matches and kindling, and torture of a few of his followers.

Thankfully, the Roman Catholic Church is my kinder and gentler than it used to be.

 

[joe371]

LOL. It doesn’t say he was tortured and executed because of heretical ideas, in fact the article declares him NOT a heretic in matters of faith. He was excommunicated because he strongly criticized the vices of the powers that be in Florence and the Borgia Pope. They told him to shut up and stop rocking the boat, and he refused. That earned him the popes matches and kindling, and torture of a few of his followers.

Thankfully, the Roman Catholic Church is my kinder and gentler than it used to be.

Anyone who would order some to be burned alive will have a lot to answer for when they come face to face with God…Of course there is wheat and chaff in every church, sadly…

 

[Faithdancer]

Interesting. Besides the fact that scripture never describes itself as completely sufficient, and also doesn’t even define it’s own canon, if something is infallible, but contains obscure meaning and is thus subject to fallible interpretation (or rather, MUST be subject to fallible human interpretation, as scripture doesn’t interpret itself or even attest to its own canon), what good is infallibility (inerrancy, more accurately)? Wouldn’t it be like God giving us something perfect, and then not giving us the ability to use it as he intended? Seems shortsighted on God’s part.

God gave me the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word.I don’t need a magisterium to explain Sacred Scripture to me. There are plenty of great commentaries if I want additional insight.

 

[joe371]

God gave me the heart, mind and soul to understand His Word.I don’t need a magisterium to explain Sacred Scripture to me. There are plenty of great commentaries if I want additional insight.

Do the various Christians belonging to different churches, with leaders teaching different things, also possess the the heart, mind and soul to understand Jesus’ Word? If so then why don’t they all have the same understanding of scripture? I don’t think God teaches different things to different folks, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit.