P
PluniaZ
Guest
That’s not what Scripture says.
why is it that other religions bleave in Sol Scriptorm but not us as Catholics?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
Other “religions” do not believe in sola scriptura.why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tombut not us as Catholics?
I assume you mean non-Catholic Christians. Christianity is the religion.
S
steve_b
Guest
That belief came about during the Protestant revolt from the Catholic Church. Once Protestors left the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Timothy 3:15 ) they needed an authority. An authority THEY could control on their own, and how it was to be understood on their terms
C:
Scripture doesn’t call itself the pillar and foundation of truth. Scripture says that belongs to the Church.
Here’s a quick 1st 400 years of the Church. The Church of history is the Catholic Church, by name, properly referenced. All internal links are operational #34
Blessings in your RCIA journey towards Easter
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
A cynic might say it is because it allows them to guide their own steps.why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Hi CMS,
Here’s why. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? and It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II) ,
Take care and God bless you with peace.
Here’s why. It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? and It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II) ,
Take care and God bless you with peace.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Other religions do not have the Church, so they have to rely just on their own opinions about scripture. But we do not have to go by fallible human opinions.why is it that other religions believe in Sol Scripture tom
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Sola Scriptura cannot be practiced.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
PJM’s reply was very good, but I’ll put in my own 2 cents’ worth.
You could quibble about exact dates, but most scholars believe the first epistles of Paul were written c. 50 AD and Mark, the first Gospel, about 60 AD. So if Christ died c. 30 AD, we have 20-30 years before any of the currently accepted books of the NT were in existence.
So in other words, the Church pre-dates the first books of the NT by 20-30 years. If you believed in sola scriptura, how would you explain who was running the shop for those 20-30 years?
In fact, the Church has always maintained that oral tradition and the NT are both valid sources of authority, revelation, etc. etc. And why do we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are valid Gospels and Peter and Thomas are not? Because the Church says so. In other words, the Church validates the NT, not the other way around.
And, as another poster pointed out quite correctly, if you really, really believed in sola scriptura, you would be able to point to the verse in the NT that says sola scriptura is the way to go. You can’t. It’s not there. So…logically, it’s illogical to believe that.
You could quibble about exact dates, but most scholars believe the first epistles of Paul were written c. 50 AD and Mark, the first Gospel, about 60 AD. So if Christ died c. 30 AD, we have 20-30 years before any of the currently accepted books of the NT were in existence.
So in other words, the Church pre-dates the first books of the NT by 20-30 years. If you believed in sola scriptura, how would you explain who was running the shop for those 20-30 years?
In fact, the Church has always maintained that oral tradition and the NT are both valid sources of authority, revelation, etc. etc. And why do we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are valid Gospels and Peter and Thomas are not? Because the Church says so. In other words, the Church validates the NT, not the other way around.
And, as another poster pointed out quite correctly, if you really, really believed in sola scriptura, you would be able to point to the verse in the NT that says sola scriptura is the way to go. You can’t. It’s not there. So…logically, it’s illogical to believe that.
- Status