You can't have it both ways.

[Nicea325]

Solo Scriptura isn’t anybody’s official view, as far as I know. Instead, it’s somebody’s pejorative characterization of somebody else’s view, an exaggeration saying they completely ignore everything but Scripture.

I don’t base my faith on rejection of Catholicism. I consider Catholics to be my Christian brethren, though in error on some points. I’ve at least looked over the Catholic Catechism, and I’d say I agree with about 90%. But some of the remaining 10% are biggies.

Almost there… Just kidding…God Bless

 

[Rightlydivide]

seems that the OP was written more to start an aurgument than a debate; however, this was the major factor for me converting to Catholicism…to me i can 100% accept the fact that the holy spirit leads us in uncovering the meaning of scripture. what hooked me was the saying of “if one person feels that the holy spirit has lead them to uncover the deeper meaning of certian scripture and another person believes that they were also lead, but to the opposit conclusion, where is the truth.” of course there are always areas that scripture can have more than one meaning but to outright condridict itself? i can’t beleive that Jesus would set us up for the obvious failure that has come from the idea of sola scriptora and this was where it took me more faith to continue to attend a protestant church then to admitt that i can’t fight the obvious logic behind having a visible authoritative entity. one that is truely commissioned fro Christ. this isn’t an attack on my non-catholic brothers but why would we be lead to such abiguity? it obvious from the post here on catholic.com that the non-catholic members are definitly educated and i am quite interested in the counter aurgument…

Would you be interested in dealing with anything I wrote about in #10?
Thank you

 

[joe370]

At its most basic level it means that scripture is the highest authority and all other Christian authorities must submit to it.

OK Patrick. If all truth is revealed through the bible alone, then provide scriptural proof that all truth is revealed through the bible alone? No commentary please, just scriptural passages to bolster your claim.

Show me where scripture** (actual verses as opposed to your personal opinion) **- says that scripture is the highest authority, and all Christian authorities **must submit to it? **

BTW, all Christians belonging to the CC agree that: All Scripture (not only scripture) - is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but that passage is silent regarding the all sufficiency of the bible alone as the Christians final authority.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To be honest I am growing tired of the “I am right” and “you are wrong” arguments. I for one try my best without getting into heated debates, tell my non-Catholic friends and our separate brothers and sisters what we as Catholics believe and teach. They want to learn more about it…great! If not,then God bless and may the Lord guide us all as one. Now I know at times it does not go in such a pattern,but I try. Peace!

I’m getting more annoyed by the growing number of threads that are simply baited questions, where a person asks, “Why do y’all believe this?”, and when they get a decent response only respond with what amounts to, “HA! Idiot.” I’m also annoyed when every thread with a potential for good discussion veers off topic when people from both sides come in and post cookie-cutter arguments that have been responded to a thousand times.

 

[Newbie2]

OK Patrick. If all truth is revealed through the bible alone, then provide scriptural proof that all truth is revealed through the bible alone? No commentary please, just scriptural passages to bolster your claim.

Show me where scripture** (actual verses as opposed to your personal opinion) **- says that scripture is the highest authority, and all Christian authorities **must submit to it? **

BTW, all Christians belonging to the CC agree that: All Scripture (not only scripture) - is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but that passage is silent regarding the all sufficiency of the bible alone as the Christians final authority.

Well, that depends on one’s interpretation of that verse, doesn’t it? So we get back to interpretation as the great divider.

I’ve asked your question many times and the answer is always the same…one or several verses from which the protestant apologist has stretched the meaning to fit their POV…and I do mean stretch. But for them it’s not a stretch.

I get differing interpretations of Scripture; I just don’t quite understand the outright rejection of Tradition (Big T).

 

[StTommyMore]

Well, that depends on one’s interpretation of that verse, doesn’t it? So we get back to interpretation as the great divider.

I’ve asked your question many times and the answer is always the same…one or several verses from which the protestant apologist has stretched the meaning to fit their POV…and I do mean stretch. But for them it’s not a stretch.

I get differing interpretations of Scripture; I just don’t quite understand the outright rejection of Tradition (Big T).

The rejection of tradition comes from the fact that the most commonly used Protestant Bible, the NIV, is a faulty translation with an inherent bias against tradition.

 

[joe370]

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone)

---

If you are one of those people who truly believe in the sixteen century Protestant invention, “Sola scriptura”, or scripture alone or Bible alone, then all that anyone with this belief should ever post here, to defend their position are Bible verses, right?

Anything else is extra-biblical and not “Sola scriptura” and would be essentially meaningless, correct?

If all Bible verses are so clear and “*not only the learned, but the unlearned… may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” *why are there so many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant denominations who disagree with each other?

If this were true, then there would only be only one Protestant denomination, correct? If I were to go along with this belief, then these disagreements wouldn’t make any sense, would they?

Maybe someone here could an explain how Sola scriptura works and if it does work then why so much division in Protestantism? .

Your thoughts?

Jimmy, all valid points and the very reason why I am no longer a protestant. Bible verses are all non-Catholics should use to back up their statements; why the need for the Westminster or Lutheran confessions if the bible alone is all sufficient.

Good question: where is the one reformed church founded by man, that accomplished what Jesus apparently could not? Jesus said: I will build MY church…If He is the builder then why the need for another builder to reform what God built, is still building?

If sola scriptura, the bible alone, as the Christians final authority, is where** all truth can be found** for resolving doctrinal differences then Christianity is in big trouble. You said: Why so much division in Protestantism?

The answer as you already know is - sola scriptura as the Christians final authority. If the bible alone as the Christians only authority, was in fact Jesus’ plan for His church, then why the need for all those pastor/teachers in all those protestant churches? That was a question I often pondered as a former protestant.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If sola scriptura, the bible alone, as the Christians final authority, is where** all truth can be found** for resolving doctrinal differences then Christianity is in big trouble. You said: Why so much division in Protestantism?

The answer as you already know is - sola scriptura as the Christians final authority. If the bible alone as the Christians only authority, was in fact Jesus’ plan for His church, then why the need for all those pastor/teachers in all those protestant churches? That was a question I often pondered as a former protestant.

Two points, the first two schisms were churches that held to scripture and tradition. Correct?
Next, is it true that a person following the Bible would need to have teachers and pastors because the Bible teaches that?

 

[joe370]

Well, that depends on one’s interpretation of that verse, doesn’t it? So we get back to interpretation as the great divider.

I’ve asked your question many times and the answer is always the same…one or several verses from which the protestant apologist has stretched the meaning to fit their POV…and I do mean stretch. But for them it’s not a stretch.

I get differing interpretations of Scripture; I just don’t quite understand the outright rejection of Tradition (Big T).

Agreed, considering the fact that sacred scripture is a product of apostolic tradition.

As long as each sola scriptura advocate continues to defer to their interpretation of the bible, as the final authority on the matter, nothing will ever get resolved.

If SS advocates don’t believe in the authority of the CC (the same church that gave the world the bible) - then these SS advocates have no basis for believing that the bible is trustworthy.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Agreed, considering the fact that sacred scripture is a product of apostolic tradition.

As long as each sola scriptura advocate continues to defer to their interpretation of the bible, as the final authority on the matter, nothing will ever get resolved.

If SS advocates don’t believe in the authority of the CC (the same church that gave the world the bible) - then these SS advocates have no basis for believing that the bible is trustworthy.

So Christians should abandon the Bible if they do not believe in Catholic authority? Good for you! Maybe you will get rewarded in heaven for talking people out of believing the Bible? Because what if you actually convince someone, or did you not think about that?

 

[PatrickSebast]

OK Patrick. If all truth is revealed through the bible alone, then provide scriptural proof that all truth is revealed through the bible alone? No commentary please, just scriptural passages to bolster your claim.

Show me where scripture** (actual verses as opposed to your personal opinion) **- says that scripture is the highest authority, and all Christian authorities **must submit to it? **

BTW, all Christians belonging to the CC agree that: All Scripture (not only scripture) - is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…but that passage is silent regarding the all sufficiency of the bible alone as the Christians final authority.

I was simply defining what sola scripture was because someone asked. Notice how up in my profile it says “CATHOLIC.” Look how BIG I can TYPE!

 

[dianaiad]

I’m thinking a Catholic forum probably isn’t the best place to get a lot of protestant answers on this. Not all protestants believe in it either. I have a friend who has a masters degree in old testament studies from an ivy league who wants to teach at a protestant seminary and he thinks it is silly to try and reconcile the idea of Sola Scripture with the history of scripture and so did most of his, also protestant, professors.

From an LDS point of view (and we are NOT by any means sola scripturian or sola fidean) the idea is both a whip to beat everybody else with, and a stumbling block. When backed into corners, the defense is always "but scripture is perfect in the original.

That’s fine, but we don’t have the originals. It makes things nicely circular, and neatly defensible. Sort of.

Actually, squishy is a better word.

 

[joe370]

So Christians should abandon the Bible if they do not believe in Catholic authority?

Yup…Just kidding. LOL…LOL…Of course not.

Good for you! Maybe you will get rewarded in heaven for talking people out of believing the Bible? Because what if you actually convince someone, or did you not think about that?

Talking people out of believing the Bible? Wow, so angry… I am simply suggesting that the bible is not the Christians final authority for resolving differences. Let’s say it is and if it is, let’s put the bible as the Christians final authority, to the test:

Some churches claim that Jesus was speaking in metaphor in John 6 and some churches (Lutheran) - claim that Jesus was speaking literally (my flesh is real food…) - and they both defer to the bible, as their final authority, for their doctrinal clarification. Using SS as the Christians final authority, let’s you and I figure out who is right and who is wrong?

Go…

 

[joe370]

I was simply defining what sola scripture was because someone asked. Notice how up in my profile it says “CATHOLIC.” Look how BIG I can TYPE!

**Oops…Sorry Patrick. **

 

[Rightlydivide]

Talking people out of believing the Bible? Wow, so angry… I am simply suggesting that the bible is not the Christians final authority for resolving differences. Let’s say it is and if it is, let’s put the bible as the Christians final authority, to the test:

Some churches claim that Jesus was speaking in metaphor in John 6 and some churches (Lutheran) - claim that Jesus was speaking literally (my flesh is real food…) - and they both defer to the bible, as their final authority, for their doctrinal clarification. Using SS as the Christians final authority, let’s you and I figure out who is right and who is wrong?

Go…

So you do not believe that people should either accept Catholic authority or not believe the Bible? That is what was said…
So you want to put God to the test…how ironic Luke 4:12
Okay, lets try something that does not violate scripture and use tradition to determine if the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic Church has the correct view of indulgences.
Can we do that as well?

 

[joe370]

Two points, the first two schisms were churches that held to scripture and tradition. Correct?
Next, is it true that a person following the Bible would need to have teachers and pastors because the Bible teaches that?

The schism of the 11th century which caused the CC to divide into the EOC and the CC held to both, and still do.

It is true that a person following the Bible would need to have teachers and pastors. We see lots of teachers/pastor in the CC, the EOC and the myriad protestant churches, all of which are isolated and autonomous.

 

[joe370]

So you do not believe that people should either accept Catholic authority or not believe the Bible?

No. The bible is the inspired word of God, why would I?

That is what was said…
So you want to put God to the test…how ironic Luke 4:12

Sure, but let’s address my question first, or we can do both at the same time.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The schism of the 11th century which caused the CC to divide into the EOC and the CC held to both, and still do.

It is true that a person following the Bible would need to have teachers and pastors. We see lots of teachers/pastor in the CC, the EOC and the myriad protestant churches, all of which are isolated and autonomous.

And lets not forget the earlier schism.
But so they have different Traditions? How did you decide which one was correct? I am sure you also examined the Oriental Orthodox and the other churches that trace their bishops to the Apostles? You had to examine all of them to decide which traditons were correct?
Just checking.

 

[StTommyMore]

So you do not believe that people should either accept Catholic authority or not believe the Bible? That is what was said…
So you want to put God to the test…how ironic Luke 4:12
Okay, lets try something that does not violate scripture and use tradition to determine if the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic Church has the correct view of indulgences.
Can we do that as well?

Sad attempt to derail the thread. If you truly believed the Bible, you would be Catholic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Sure, but let’s address my question first, or we can do both at the same time.

Joe, you do not put God to a test. That is the point. I cannot believe you actually said that.