How do you feel about Sola Scriptura?

[Ktoyou]

No. No there is not. All sola says is that the Bible is the final authority and thus it can negate anything else that stands in opposition to it.

Clete's post encompasses ALL that the doctrine states in it's accepted definition.

Where does is say in scripture that all one needs in scripture alone?

What about all the untaught who are not educated in Biblical exegesis? We have too many half-whit Biblical interpretations because we think the masses can understand the Bible.

 

[assuranceagent]

Where does is say in scripture that all one needs in scripture alone?

What about all the untaught who are not educated in Biblical exegesis? We have too many half-whit Biblical interpretations because we think the masses can understand the Bible.

To the first part: it doesn't, but neither does sola scriptura. It simply says that anything else - teaching, tradition, doctrine, books etc - all submit to the final authority of scripture. In other words: scripture can render any of those things invalid, but they cannot do the same to scripture. The sola part is just that scripture stands alone in this lofty position of final authority, not that it is the ONLY thing that can be used to understand the things of God.

To the second part: you won't find argument in me on this issue.

 

[Clete]

Where does is say in scripture that all one needs in scripture alone?

It doesn't and neither does sola scriptura.

What about all the untaught who are not educated in Biblical exegesis? We have too many half-whit Biblical interpretations because we think the masses can understand the Bible.

What about them? This has nothing to do with what sola scriptura is about.

If you would reject a belief, doctrine, tradition or whatever other religious thing you can think of solely on the basis of rational interpretation of Scripture then you hold to sola scriptura because that's all sola scriptura is! It says the church can't stand next to Scripture in authority, it says that tradition can't stand next to Scripture in authority, it says that nothing other than God Himself can stand next to or above Scripture in authority concerning Christian doctrine and practice.

In actual fact, given the meaning of the words themselves, the proper name for sola scriptura should have been prima scriptura, but it does no good to call it that now because prima scriptura has come to mean something significantly different than its name would imply and so we are stuck with the name sola scriptura, which is perfectly fine as long as people make some clear effort to make sure they understand what is meant by the use of those words and that the meaning is something other than the words themselves might imply on their surface.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[MaryContrary]

It doesn't and neither does sola scriptura.


What about them? This has nothing to do with what sola scriptura is about.

If you would reject a belief, doctrine, tradition or whatever other religious thing you can think of solely on the basis of rational interpretation of Scripture then you hold to sola scriptura because that's all sola scriptura is! It says the church can't stand next to Scripture in authority, it says that tradition can't stand next to Scripture in authority, it say nothing other than God Himself can stand next to or above Scripture in authority concerning Christian doctrine and practice.

In actual fact given the meaning of the words themselves the proper name for sola scriptura should have been prima scriptura but it does no good to call it that now because prima scriptura has come to mean something significantly different that its name would imply and so we are stuck with the name sola scriptura, which is perfectly fine as long as people make some clear effort to make sure they understand what is meant by the use of those words and that the meaning is something other than the words themselves might imply on their surface.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, sheesh. If that's what Sola Scriptura means then I want to change my vote. I'd always gotten that it meant nothing can be said true if scripture doesn't specifically support it as true which is patently ridiculous. Heck, while I can't think of any verses to this effect right off the top of my head, it seems to me that scripture often appeals to common sense.
Wait, I think I've got an example, hold on:

Luke 13: 1-5
1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

Now tell me that's not a clear case of "dude, use your brain".

 

[RC_Eagle]

Millenarianism

Millenarianism

I have just thought of a great example of a "doctrine" ostensibly founded on Scripture that was thrown out by the Church on the basis of Tradition. This is the belief in the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth prior to the resurrection of the dead, known as Millenarianism or Chiliasm. There was much debate on this interpretation in the early centuries of the Church. Some Church Fathers made statements that appeared to support it, while others such as Origen and St. Augustine condemned it, teaching that the 1,000 years were symbolic. Eventually, however, the weight of Tradition fell against Millenarianism, when the Council of Ephesus declared it a heresey in 431. Millenarianism also expressly contradicts the Nicene Creed, which states that Christ “shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.”

So you see, Tradition is needed because some passages in Scripture may admit either literal or symbolic meanings. For example Protestants interpret John 6:53 symbolically, whereas Catholics take it literally. This is the famous verse:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you (John 6:53)."

 

[assuranceagent]

So you see, Tradition is needed because some passages in Scripture may admit either literal or symbolic meanings. For example Protestants interpret John 6:53 symbolically, whereas Catholics take it literally. This is the famous verse:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you (John 6:53)."

You've shown two things with this post. One is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sola scriptura.

The other is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sound reason. :up:

 

[rbdeli]

You've shown two things with this post. One is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sola scriptura.

The other is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sound reason. :up:

So, you should be able to use sound reasoning or at the very least the bible to prove Sola Scriptura. Have at it.

 

[rbdeli]

Standing on what scripture says is building on a rock. Standing on what a church (any church) has to say about what scripture says is building on sand

We all agree the bible is a rock, but it has to be taught. When you stand on Scripture alone, you are building on quick sand because it's subject to the interpretation of those reading it. If there is one thing we should all know by now from the TOL website, it's that no two protestant interpretations are the same, and many of them are drastically different. The Catholic Church has had one interpretation from the very beginning and it's history is documented from the bible, through the Early Church Writings, to the Trent Council, to the Catechism we have today. It's doctrine is solid and unchanging.

If Sola Scriptura were true it would say so in the bible. It does not.

 

[Choleric]

We all agree the bible is a rock, but it has to be taught. When you stand on Scripture alone, you are building on quick sand because it's subject to the interpretation of those reading it. If there is one thing we should all know by now from the TOL website, it's that no two protestant interpretations are the same, and many of them are drastically different.

This is the argument that always baffles me. the reason Protestants say the Bible is the final authority is because there can be so many interpretations. that is why the Bible is the ultimate authority. It is the Bible that is the plumb line where all doctrine must be lined up.

Just because some people misinterpret the Bible, is not the Bible's fault. the Word never changes. It is the foundation of our doctrines and therefore, all teaching must be corroborated in it.

The Catholic Church has had one interpretation from the very beginning and it's history is documented from the bible, through the Early Church Writings, to the Trent Council, to the Catechism we have today. It's doctrine is solid and unchanging.

Unchanging, are you serious? Anyway, the catholic church is welcome to their interpretation, they simply have no authority to tell us theirs is the Final Authority, especially when the things they teach do not line up with Scripture.

If Sola Scriptura were true it would say so in the bible. It does not.

that is your opinion and your interpretation of the many many verses that refer to the Book and the Word.
:cheers:

 

[rbdeli]

1 Thes 2:13 “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”

What is the alternative?

The only reasonable alternative is the one Church dating back to the bible and Peter the First pope, and Early Christian writings that confirm what that true chuch is today, The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Paul also said,

I Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Romans 10:14-17 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can man preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah say, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ

 

[rbdeli]

This is the argument that always baffles me. the reason Protestants say the Bible is the final authority is because there can be so many interpretations. that is why the Bible is the ultimate authority. It is the Bible that is the plumb line where all doctrine must be lined up.

When your Protestant Friend tells you that your interpretation of Paul to the Romans is all wrong, by whose authority do you claim he is mistaken? Is Christ okay with the fact we have over 25,000 - 30,000 different denominations who can't agree on the teachings of the bible handed down by the Apostles. Let's remember, the bible was taught for centuries before the first printed book became publicly available. How did Sola Scriptura apply when there was no printed NT?

Just because some people misinterpret the Bible, is not the Bible's fault. the Word never changes. It is the foundation of our doctrines and therefore, all teaching must be corroborated in it.

Of course, it is not the bibles fault, it's the fault of those who make themselves their own authority for what it means. I have the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as a witness and teacher on what the bible says and means, and the entire Catholic membership of the Body of Christ is in complete agreement:

Mark 3:25 "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.''

Unchanging, are you serious? Anyway, the catholic church is welcome to their interpretation, they simply have no authority to tell us theirs is the Final Authority, especially when the things they teach do not line up with Scripture.

Of course I'm serious. Do some research on the history of faith and morals in Christianity. Don't confuse practices for doctrines and principals. The church has not changed one of it's principals or doctrines. Not one. When it comes to matters of faith and morals, the Church has been 100% consistent for over 2000 years.
The Mass has been practiced the same way since it was described in the Gospel, and soon after by early Christians such as Justin Martyr in 135 AD. When it comes to morals, the Catholic church remains the only Christian denomination that has remained steadfast and unchanging on Contraception, Abortion, Marriage, Sexual unions., etc, etc... It was but 70 years ago, that the Protestant faith allowed Contraception, and not too long after that, divorce.

..and yes, the Church has the authority as handed down to them by Christ to Peter, his Rock, The Catholic Church, and the teachings of the rest of his Apostles.

Matthew 16:17-19
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church

John 10:6
There shall be one fold and one shepherd

 

[RC_Eagle]

You've shown two things with this post. One is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sola scriptura.

The other is that the Catholic church is obviously opposed to sound reason. :up:

Before you dismiss out of hand the Catholic Church's interpretation of John 6:53, remember that Lutherans and Anglicans also believe in the Real Presence, even though they have different ideas on how to explain it besides Trans-substantiation. Luther quarreled wtih Zwingli precisely because he was adamant about maintaining the literal interpretation of John 6:53, which was held by the Church since the very beginning (see 1 Cor 11:27-29). After all, why did the crowd who listened to Jesus' statement in John 6:53 say, "This saying is hard, who can accept it (John 6:60)?" if all they needed to do was to interpret what he said symbolically? "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (John 6:66)." (Notice the numbers in bold?)

During the Roman persecutions, Christians developed what was known as the Disciplina Arcani, in which all public mention of the Eucharist became cryptic and roundabout to hide the belief in the Real Presence from the unbelieving Roman mobs. One of the early Christian martyrs of the Eucharist was a boy named Tarcisius, who was an acolyte that was asked to deliver the Eucharist secretly to Christians awaiting martyrdom in prison. In the words of Pope St. Damasus I:

"At Rome, on the Appian way, the passion of St. Tarcisius the acolyte, whom pagans met carrying the sacrament of the Body of Christ and asked him what it was he was carrying. He deemed it a shameful thing to cast pearls before the swine, and so was assaulted by them for a long time with clubs and stones until he gave up the ghost. When they turned over his body, the sacrilegious assailants could find no trace of Christ's Sacrament either in his hands or in his clothing. The Christians took up the body of the martyr and buried it with honor in the cemetery of Callistus."

The patron saint of first communicants is Blessed Imelda Lambertini, a girl who swooned in ecstasy and died as she received her first Eucharist in 1333. You can still see her incorrupt body as fresh as the morning dew in Bologna, Italy. See:

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index...ion/store.ItemDetails/SKU/16489/ImageSize/Lg/ .

The most famous Eucharistic miracle was the one that happened in the 8th century at Lanciano, Italy, when the communion host and "wine" were miraculously stripped of their outward appearance to reveal real human heart muscle and blood. This flesh and blood are still preserved and have been scientifically studied. The results of the investigation are described here:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html .

So please don't scoff too loud. We Catholics know sound reason when we see it. But we also know what real faith in the words of Our Lord is like, and what miracles result from it.

 

[RC_Eagle]

This is the argument that always baffles me. the reason Protestants say the Bible is the final authority is because there can be so many interpretations. that is why the Bible is the ultimate authority. It is the Bible that is the plumb line where all doctrine must be lined up.

One of the problems with this argument is that, being a book, the Bible doesn't talk back. So while it is an authoritative reference, a real flesh and blood authority is still needed, otherwise whatever true interpretation there is gets lost among the crowd of denominations.

 

[Berean Todd]

The only reasonable alternative is the one Church dating back to the bible and Peter the First pope, and Early Christian writings that confirm what that true chuch is today, The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Paul also said,

I Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Romans 10:14-17 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can man preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah say, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ

Brother, traditions are fine to be passed along, in so much as they line up with the Word of God, they are not authoritative in and of themselves. Go to Acts 17, the Berean church is commended above all others, not because they accepted Paul's words and teachings as facts but why? Because they daily searched the Scriptures to see if the things they were being taught were true!! They were commended because they realized that the word of any man, even one of the apostles, is only acceptable as much as it lines up with our source of authority, being the Scriptures.

 

[Choleric]

When your Protestant Friend tells you that your interpretation of Paul to the Romans is all wrong, by whose authority do you claim he is mistaken? Is Christ okay with the fact we have over 25,000 - 30,000 different denominations who can't agree on the teachings of the bible handed down by the Apostles.

I tell him it's in the Bible that way and then read it. Christ is just fine with people reading the bible for themselves. That is why we have it.

there is nothing wrong with asking someone for help to understand certain doctrines or principles, but it is a far cry from the RCC telling me confession to a priest is necessary for salvation, the praying to saints is efficacious or that doing penance can somehow cover my sins.

My faith is in the Blood, and it is that which cleanses me. his is the main problem with the RCC, the authority gets extended to include adding thins that are unscriptural and saying they are necessary for salvation. The only thin necessary for salvation is faith in the Blood of Christ to cover my sin.

With all the disagreements among Protestants, somehow we all manage to agree to stay away from the Catholic heresies that teach men there is not enough power in the Blood.

Of course, it is not the bibles fault, it's the fault of those who make themselves their own authority for what it means. I have the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and as a witness and teacher on what the bible says and means, and the entire Catholic membership of the Body of Christ is in complete agreement:

First of all, most professing Catholics don't even fully understand their own church teaching.

Secondly, you don not have any special authority. the pope and all his buddies have no more authority to interpret Scripture for you than you do. And when you allow them to alter the basic meaning of the Scriptures to include a works based salvation, then you are putting your eternal soul in their hands.

..and yes, the Church has the authority as handed down to them by Christ to Peter, his Rock, The Catholic Church, and the teachings of the rest of his Apostles.

Matthew 16:17-19
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church

John 10:6
There shall be one fold and one shepherd

Once again, this is your interpretation. Somehow all the 'disagreeing' Protestant churches have a hard time seeing it your way.

 

[rbdeli]

Secondly, you don not have any special authority. the pope and all his buddies have no more authority to interpret Scripture for you than you do. And when you allow them to alter the basic meaning of the Scriptures to include a works based salvation, then you are putting your eternal soul in their hands.

Can you please show me in the Catechism where Catholics practice a Work-Based Salvation?

Once again, this is your interpretation.

You mean the bible, alone isn't sufficient to teach all of us the same intepretation? I thought you believed it was. Don't you believe in Sola Scriptura? By whose interpretation is yours more accurate than mine?

Somehow all the 'disagreeing' Protestant churches have a hard time seeing it your way

Yes, they see it approximately 30,000 different ways, since a mere mortal man took it upon himself, 15 centuries after Christ had already instituted the Church, and decided God's plan for salvation didn't quite suit his needs.

 

[rbdeli]

Brother, traditions are fine to be passed along, in so much as they line up with the Word of God, they are not authoritative in and of themselves. Go to Acts 17, the Berean church is commended above all others, not because they accepted Paul's words and teachings as facts but why? Because they daily searched the Scriptures to see if the things they were being taught were true!! They were commended because they realized that the word of any man, even one of the apostles, is only acceptable as much as it lines up with our source of authority, being the Scriptures.

You are correct. That is why the Catholic Church beholds both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Teachings as requirements for learning the truth of God.
Did the Christians of the Berean Church search the NT scriptures too, or did they realize that the book had yet to be written?

More important though, let me ask you: What do you suppose is the foundation and protector of the truth?

 

[assuranceagent]

Can you please show me in the Catechism where Catholics practice a Work-Based Salvation?

I don't read the catechism. However, is baptism required for salvation?

You mean the bible, alone isn't sufficient to teach all of us the same intepretation? I thought you believed it was. Don't you believe in Sola Scriptura? By whose interpretation is yours more accurate than mine?

1. Sola scriptura doesn't say that (for the 3 millionth time)

and...

2. You don't have an interpretation...you subscribe to that of the RCC so it is their interpretation is it not?

Yes, they see it approximately 30,000 different ways, since a mere mortal man took it upon himself, 15 centuries after Christ had already instituted the Church, and decided God's plan for salvation didn't quite suit his needs.

1. The catholic church has more than it's fair share of doctrinal disagreements within it's ranks so you can drop the "unity of the church" argument because it's just not valid.

2. Is the pope himself not a mere mortal man?

 

[Choleric]

Can you please show me in the Catechism where Catholics practice a Work-Based Salvation?

The sacrament of forgiveness

1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47

The confession of sins

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."54

X. INDULGENCES

1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.

What is an indulgence?

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.83

I could go on, but I believe that is sufficient.

You mean the bible, alone isn't sufficient to teach all of us the same intepretation? I thought you believed it was. Don't you believe in Sola Scriptura? By whose interpretation is yours more accurate than mine?

Look at the mormons and the JW's. When they are in hell and look up, is God going to say, well since you were following the church and not really interpreting Scripture for yourself, I'll let you into heaven since it wasn't really your fault? No, he will not, because those people have sufficient faculties and the Word of God to lead them to the truth.

We are all equally responsible to know the truth for ourselves. To rely on another mortal man to tell me the way to reconciliation and life everlasting is a game I don't want to play.

If the RCC said you had to have a yearly sacrifice, would you go along? What if they said you had to sacrifice your firstborn male child? At what point does their authority cease to take precedent over your life? saying you were only following the RCC will not help you on judgment day!

Yes, they see it approximately 30,000 different ways, since a mere mortal man took it upon himself, 15 centuries after Christ had already instituted the Church, and decided God's plan for salvation didn't quite suit his needs.

What is funny is that you somehow miss the fact that the pope is just as mortal as you and me, except he has an agenda that involves keeping people in his church and tells them they must or perish.:bang:

 

[rbdeli]

I am fully aware of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
I asked you to show me where in the Catechism it says that the Catholic doctrine is based on Works, and you responded with the sacraments. This shows that you are very ignorant and have an insufficient understanding of the Church's Doctrine of salvation, and the role that Sacraments play.

The Catholic Church believes Salvation is by Grace, and Grace alone, and it is stated in the Catechism as such. However, Grace does not mean that no response is required from us. Our salvation is a process of Faith and Works which stems from that Grace in God. Works that don't come through the Grace of God are worthless, just as Faith without Works is Dead, as in the book of James. We are justifed by our Faith working through God's love - Just as Paul says.

We are all equally responsible to know the truth for ourselves. To rely on another mortal man to tell me the way to reconciliation and life everlasting is a game I don't want to play.

But you are relying on mortal man. The First Protestant Church, broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s, and formed their own rules, based on their own, men's 'convenient' interpretations of the bible. Those rules have been rapidly changing by every way the wind blows. It was not until 1930 that ALL Christian churches banned contraception. What did the Catholic Church do about Contraception? When you break away from Christ's one Church, you cause a lot of trouble trying to find the truth. The Fundamentlist, Evangelist form of Christianity that we have today is the latest wave of new theology which originated in about 1920. No doubt, There will be thousands more in the coming decades.

If the RCC said you had to have a yearly sacrifice, would you go along? What if they said you had to sacrifice your firstborn male child? At what point does their authority cease to take precedent over your life? saying you were only following the RCC will not help you on judgment day!

Horribly ignorant question. If you knew what the Catholic Church taught, and the bible half as well as you think, you'd know that is impossible. It is much more likely that you would get brainwashed through a Fundamentalist Cult, or any other number of non-Catholic derivitives, than a Catholic Church, which is the one, true Holy Apostolic Church of God as it says so in the bible. The Church has a lot of strict teachings about faith and morals, particularly about abortion, marriage, divorce, contraception, homosexuality. Is the Church wrong about these things? Since you read the bible, I'm sure you're 100% in line with what the Church teaches. If not, then you need to read some more. There is never the danger of the Church telling me to do something God doesn't want me to do.

What is funny is that you somehow miss the fact that the pope is just as mortal as you and me, except he has an agenda that involves keeping people in his church and tells them they must or perish

You think this because you have mistaken the Pope's role, and misunderstood what he says. Popes do not rewrite Church Doctrine. The doctrine on Salvation, Faith and morals has remained the same for 2000 years - precisely why the Protestants started their own Church/s.

I wish so badly that a few of you would just take a couple of days to read the book I recommended because I am tired of correcting what you think the Catholic Church is, rather than engage in genuine discussions about why you disagree with what it really is. Born Fundamentalist / Born Again Catholic, by David Currie

He says it much better than I can.