Why Sola Scriptura fails

[PRmerger]

However people interpret the soul to be, the bible says that the soul can die, eat, sweat, is in the blood, be saved, be destroyed, can eat meat, thirst, be grieved to the point of death, fall to the ground, be pierced by the sword and so on!

Do you think this is literal? If so, can you offer an example of how a soul eats meat?

 

[Nicea325]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2s16d1rQ91qi4w9o.gif

Exactly! Which proves SS is bogus!

 

[Nicea325]

I find personally, that scripture is fine and never fails me, but I do see a built in contradiction between my Catholic Catechism and my Catholic bible?

The Soul?

In my Catechism it says that the soul is a spirit and is immortal and can never die?

I find that in my Catholic bible (and other bibles) it says the opposite!

For Example:

However people interpret the soul to be, the bible says that the soul can die, eat, sweat, is in the blood, be saved, be destroyed, can eat meat, thirst, be grieved to the point of death, fall to the ground, be pierced by the sword and so on!

Now, these are definitely not expressions one would use of an immortal, invisible soul, but the same Catholic church that produces the Catechism, also produces the Catholic bible, one based on tradition, the other sola scriptura and as all scripture is inspired of God and God cannot lie, which is correct, which do we accept, the word of men (catechism) or the word of God (bible)?

How does the Church explain the contradiction, as there can only be one truth and one cannot contradict the law of contradiction!

So, who or which is correct?

Please provide the Catechetical pages supporting your claim. The soul can ONLY be destroyed by God and our souls continue to exist ONLY because of God.

 

[Simka]

What Church?
One that started 500 years ago?
The Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages, the Bride of Christ and if the Bride, that same Bride married to the Lamb must be the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow…or did Christ divorce, leave and marry another?

Answer: the Church which is the body of all believers, who are all one in Christ Jesus, those who have been baptized by the One Spirit into the one body, who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

 

[PRmerger]

Answer: the Church which is the body of all believers, who are all one in Christ Jesus, those who have been baptized by the One Spirit into the one body, who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

Amen!

But the Church is not* only* the body of all believers. It consists of the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church.

If it were only the body of all believers, then you would be reading from the Shepherd of Hermas, which some members of the early church proclaimed to be inspired, at your liturgies.

You do not, because the Church discerned for you that it was not* theopneustos.*

 

[Simka]

Now rather than ask any Catholic on the CAF…"why are you here?..rather imagine that you ask yourself “why am I here?”…then let all of us know…Ok…

OK !!!

First, my comments were directed specifically to Nicea325 because, rather than engage in any kind of intelligent discussion, I was being asked a long series of what I perceived to be juvenile questions that he/she ought to know the answers to already. So, they appeared to me to be aimed at irritating and antagonizing, rather than any kind of intellectual engagement. In light of that attitude, I wondered openly why this individual was on this forum.

In contrast, and since you asked – my reason for being here (that is, in the “Non-Catholic Religions” Forum), is to engage from time to time in reasoned discussion in an area where, as a non-Catholic, I believe I can make a contribution on some of the topics that I know a little something about.

If the Catholics among you would rather have the forum all to yourselves, because you want nothing more than to share in denigrating everyone else, then I apologize for interfering.

 

[CopticChristian]

Answer: the Church which is the body of all believers, who are all one in Christ Jesus, those who have been baptized by the One Spirit into the one body, who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

Ehhhhhhh. Wrong.

You cannot be a descendant of Abraham. You make the same mistake that the Jews made that was pointed out by Paul.

If you believe and profess to be a descendant of Abraham then you infer a transfer of authority as noted in the Gospel of Matthew…not by election, not by schism, not by one King divorcing his wife and declaring this body to be the body…no…

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

there is a transfer through generations and when Jesus built an Apostolic Church it was not to be installed and then 1600 years later invented to be something else…

Uh, Uh…

So, you are not, cannot be a descendant of Abraham…

If baptized you are part of the OHCAC.

 

[Simka]

Simka wrote …

… the body of all believers … who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

Ehhhhhhh. Wrong. You cannot be a descendant of Abraham.

How then do you interpret and understand what Paul meant in his letter to the Galatians (Gal.3:28,29) in which he says, “… you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants …”

Is this one of those cases where the authority of Catholic doctrine overrides the clear teaching of Scripture?

 

[Nicea325]

OK !!!

First, my comments were directed specifically to Nicea325 because, rather than engage in any kind of intelligent discussion, I was being asked a long series of what I perceived to be juvenile questions that he/she ought to know the answers to already. So, they appeared to me to be aimed at irritating and antagonizing, rather than any kind of intellectual engagement. In light of that attitude, I wondered openly why this individual was on this forum.

In contrast, and since you asked – my reason for being here (that is, in the “Non-Catholic Religions” Forum), is to engage from time to time in reasoned discussion in an area where, as a non-Catholic, I believe I can make a contribution on some of the topics that I know a little something about.

If the Catholics among you would rather have the forum all to yourselves, because you want nothing more than to share in denigrating everyone else, then I apologize for interfering.

And what you preceived is wrong and I am correcting you. There is NOTHING juvenile at what I have asked you repeatedly. The fact you refuse to answer and dance around it clearly displays a sense of “dunk and hide” on your part. And the fact you got all defensive is always a sign of someone being cornered.

 

[Nicea325]

Simka wrote …

… the body of all believers … who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

And the made-made tradition of Sola Scriptura also overrides the clear teaching of Scripture.

 

[CopticChristian]

Simka wrote …

… the body of all believers … who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

No, but it got your attention…It is two ways of saying the same thing…

15"We [are] Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying], “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Paul makes the point that to be circumcised does not make you an heir, rather Baptism, a sacrament administered through the Church…or by any person administering the sacrament in the triune formula…

Romans 4 & 5 and following…

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

and in Romans he points out that we are descendants of Adam and it is by Baptism that we are grafted in, with the gift of Faith in Baptism that allows us to believe as demonstrated and taught by the Council of Orange…seen on the next page, declared by the OHCAC, that you too inherit and whose authority you deny…

Continued

 

[CopticChristian]

Simka wrote …

… the body of all believers … who belong to Christ, who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, and heirs according to God’s promise.

**continued…

Council of Orange (529 AD)**

Canons 4-8

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism – if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

**CANON 7. **If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

**CANON 8. **If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

 

[Simka]

… the made-made tradition of Sola Scriptura also overrides the clear teaching of Scripture.

OK, let’s try this and see if we can remain civil toward one another.

I maintain that the principle of sola Scriptura was accepted and operational within the Church from the very beginning of post-apostolic times. The Reformers in the 16th century did not invent it; they were simply responsible for attempting to restore this principle to the Church.

Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today – the written Scriptures, the Bible.

The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures, but was partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures alone were not materially sufficient.

But the view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the early Church, which held to the principle of sola Scriptura. In the 2nd century, the Church believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. Their sole appeal for authority was Scripture – both Old and New Testaments. In the writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found.

There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

There is one argument I have seen repeated here, that SS is “self-refuting”, invalid because it relies on the Canon which was determined by the Church. This position has one major flaw. It is based on a false assumption. According to Vatican I and Vatican II, it was God that determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon.

 

[Simka]

WHO determined Sola Scriptura is a dcotrine,praxis, principle,etc,etc. and under whose authority? Which church or group made such a declaration?

Quick answer: the early Church fathers.

Before the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus said about the Apostles, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

The Bible was the ultimate authority for the early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century, held to sola Scriptura. He expounded the principle doctrines of the faith. He wrote a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. He never appeals to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. Rather, he states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching which could not be validated from Scripture, it was to be rejected. His authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today – the written Scriptures, the Bible.

Can you point us to the Scriptures that say that there is only one special revelation from God and that is the written Scriptures?

 

[joe370]

Simka;10740018]Quick answer: the early Church fathers.

Before the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus said about the Apostles, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

The Bible was the ultimate authority for the early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth.

Sacred scripture + sacred tradition were both used to settle doctrinal disputes during the various ecumenical councils. As a former non-Catholic I eventually learned that scripture itself is a product of catholic tradition. Every early church father endorsed both; no doubt about that…There are so many examples…

kathyschley.com/Early_Church_F/Sacred_Traditx.html

 

[Simka]

…you are following a tradition that was not in the early church…

Not at all. Sola Scriptura was a doctrine most prevalent in the early church (although it was not yet so named).

Find the chapter and verse in the bible … For it to be true, it must state it…otherwise, all you have is someone’s opinion.

As Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach SS in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g. the Trinity).

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically that it alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is “God-breathed” and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Catholics who claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition contradict the teaching of St. Paul, who declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I maintain that the principle of sola Scriptura was accepted and operational within the Church from the very beginning of post-apostolic times. The Reformers in the 16th century did not invent it; they were simply responsible for attempting to restore this principle to the Church.

Prove it.

How come when we read the New Testament all these verses talk about keeping the traditions, teachings and doctrines. And NOT what they are writing only…

1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Matthew 28:20
1 Timothy 1:3
1 Timothy 4:6
Acts 2:42
Romans 6:17
Romans 16:17
1 Timothy 4:13
1 Timothy 4:16
2 Timothy 3:10
2 Timothy 4:3
Titus 2:1
2 John 9–10

And, by the way, you know what Scriptures are true because of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Go look up the answer and you’ll see it is not what you would suspect.

 

[joe370]

Not at all. Sola Scriptura was a doctrine most prevalent in the early church (although it was not yet so named).

As Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach SS in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g. the Trinity).

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically that it alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is “God-breathed” and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Catholics who claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition contradict the teaching of St. Paul, who declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

Everyone agrees that - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It does not say only scripture. So, for you, a sola scriptura advocate, a teaching does not necessarily have to be explicitly found within the pages of scripture? In terms of interpreting the infallible word, to you believe that each person, as they are guided by God, can correctly discern doctrinal truth?

 

[PRmerger]

There is one argument I have seen repeated here, that SS is “self-refuting”, invalid because it relies on the Canon which was determined by the Church. This position has one major flaw. It is based on a false assumption. According to Vatican I and Vatican II, it was God that determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church believes she discerned the canon of the NT of her own authority.

I can assure you that this is not the case.

The CC, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discerned for you the canon of the NT.

[SIGN1]You would not know it any other way.[/SIGN1]

You did not look to the Bible to find out what books belong in the Bible. You looked to the authority of the Catholic Church which discerned this through Sacred Tradition.

As such, you are not following your own model of looking to Scripture for your authority, but rather are looking to the Church. The Catholic Church.

That means your practice is self-refuting.