Posted on 07/07/2008 3:11:38 AM PDT by Gamecock
Sola Scriptura
(Latin, “the Scripture alone”)
Belief of Protestants that Christian Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in matters of faith and practice. Sola Scriptura was coined during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, but according to Protestants, is found throughout Christian history. The belief in Sola Scriptura contrasts both the Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and Eastern Orthodox belief that along with Scripture there necessarily exists an infallible authority which either interprets the Scripture with ultimate authority or adds new revelations to supplement the Scripture. Hence, in these traditions, the Scripture is not the final, ultimate, or only infallible authority as there are other authorities equal to that of Scripture. Protestants, on the other hand, while respecting the existence of other authorities (tradition, experience, reason, creation, etc.), do not believe that these are equal to that of Scripture and therefore must always be tested by, and submitted to, Scripture.
TWOTD
Sure the Bible is useful and profitable, but that doesn't mean it is the SOLE source.
If it was true what did the apostles use before the Bible was written? They went around speaking, debating, and preaching. Not one of them had a Bible to carry with them.
It seems that to many, a belief that Christian Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in matters of faith and practice is an absolute necessity.
***You would think that if this was a valid concept that it would be found some where in the Bible, but it just isn’t.***
Nor is the term Trinity. Are you a Trinitarian?
***If it was true what did the apostles use before the Bible was written?***
The OT. Christ used it as well. The Scribes and Pharisees leaned heavily on tradition and received some of the worts tounge lashings Christ dispensed.
***They went around speaking, debating, and preaching.***
And that which they spoke debated and preached that was inspired become the New Testament.
***Not one of them had a Bible to carry with them.***
But they relied on the OT to show who Christ was. It wasn’t made up as they went along.
Amazing how Mormons and Catholics and JWs all fall into the same trap.
It seems that to many, a belief that Christian Scripture is totally inadequate is an absolute necessity.
It seems that to many, there a lot of different beliefs.
There is a pair of words that seems to drive Catholics insane.
you need to keep in mind that the Canon of the Bible was not defined until 383 or 385 at the Council of Rome. Until that time there was the Gospel of Peter, and other apocryphal books being used.
Then in 393 and 397 This canon was affirmed by the councils of Hippo and Carthage.
For the next thousand years the Bible had to hand copied there were no printing presses available until about 1454.
Also remember Paul's admonition to Timothy ....Hold fat to the Traditions I taught you....
It is amazing how Protestants keep falling into this trap.
If you would like to show me some historical evidence supporting your position I would be glad to look at it.
Further proof that sola scriptura is wrong. Accept sola scriptura and you reject the Trinity.
But, who says?
***************************************
“Then in 393 and 397 This canon was affirmed by the councils of Hippo and Carthage.”
***************************************
It is also possible that those councils merely affirmed the body of books that were already obviously accepted as well among autonomous congregations and bishops who were never involved in any such councils. This would give their (those at those councils) followers the impression that THEY were the ones who really decided on the canon.
********************************************
“For the next thousand years the Bible had to hand copied there were no printing presses available until about 1454.”
********************************************
That Gutenberg press was operated by who?
********************************************
“Also remember Paul's admonition to Timothy ....Hold fat to the Traditions I taught you....”
********************************************
Beside what is written in 1 & 2 Timothy, who gets to decide what those traditions were? What other documents of Paul would be used to support them?
The Church founded by Christ Himself--the Catholic Church--circa AD 32.
” . . . the Catholic Church—circa AD 32. “
******************************
But, then, who says?
Christ.
Uh History
“Then in 393 and 397 This canon was affirmed by the councils of Hippo and Carthage.” *************************************** It is also possible that those councils merely affirmed the body of books that were already obviously accepted as well among autonomous congregations and bishops who were never involved in any such councils. This would give their (those at those councils) followers the impression that THEY were the ones who really decided on the canon. ********************************************
It is also possible that the Battlestar Galactica came down and just handed out copies, but until I see evidence we will stick with accepted history from reliable sources.
“For the next thousand years the Bible had to hand copied there were no printing presses available until about 1454.” ******************************************** That Gutenberg press was operated by who? ********************************************
Wild guess here, but I am going to guess Gutenberg and his employees
“Also remember Paul's admonition to Timothy ....Hold fat to the Traditions I taught you....” ******************************************** Beside what is written in 1 & 2 Timothy, who gets to decide what those traditions were? What other documents of Paul would be used to support them?
Having played this game with fundamentalists before what documents would yo be willing to accept? and exactly how many would you require as evidence?
LOL! And there is a single word that drives the rest crazy - as in "This is My body"
We catholics don't have to debate what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
“Uh History”
******************
Whose manipulation of historical data?
Two words of Christ that have no effect on protestants whatsoever: “Do This.”
One can take the policy to an extreme and miss the intent.
The Word of God is profitable and if all things are tested by the Word then one is on solid ground.
I agree that if somebody confuses a written book as a substitute for His Word, and fails to comprehend its meaning through faith in Christ, that meaning might quickly become contaminated with worldly perspectives.
Conversely, worldly traditions, our natural man reasoning, and rationalism are frequently promoted by unbelievers as counterfeits to our walk through faith in Him. Accordingly, if one omits Scripture en lieu of tradition, it is very easy to follow our scarred souls developed by the natural man or old sin nature along with the cosmic system of thinking in a worldly fashion.
IMHO, using sola scriptura is safe ground to tread upon when remaining in faith through Christ.
You've heard of the Old Testament, right?
You seem to miss the point that we are part of an Apostolic Church: a church based on the Apostles' Teaching. Every command is to teach what the Apostles taught.
2 Timothy 2:2 "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."
There are no secret teachings. There are the words of the Apostles: spoken and written.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
It's all about the Apostles. There are no new revelations. The words of the Apostles are adequate; the words of the Apostles are a firm foundation.
Putting tradition above (or equal to) the words of the Apostles is shameful, unless you can point out where the Apostles allowed this. The words of the Apostles always say to teach the words of the Apostles. The Apostles never give anyone the authority to teach new teachings, they always say to teach what they taught. There is no evolution.
I don't think I've ever read any Vatican proclamation that stated, "As the Apostles taught in public..." Everything else is just made up.
Who founded the Church, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?
While I’m at it,..or God the Father?
exactly. The Bible is not a handbook for everything about Christianity. It is not an instruction manual. The authors were not writing “The Dummies Guide to Practicing Christianity”.
Furthermore, God is a living God, not a character in a book. Protestants, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, seem to want to limit God to what it says in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that provide witness to Christ.
It contains the 4 Gospels-—books that detail the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
It also contains the writings of some of the early apostles like Paul, outlining various theological positions and dealing with common problems in the early Church.
And those same apocrypgal books continued to be used after the Council of Rome. You know why? Because they were used by Gnostics. Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, already knew what was Scripture and what wasn't, and didn't need a council to tell them. All that the various councils did was affirm what Christians already knew for a couple of centuries.
Also remember Paul's admonition to Timothy ....Hold fat to the Traditions I taught you....
Illogical. I've never seen a Catholic yet who could move beyond merely pointing to the word "tradition" and actually demonstrate that the traditions that Paul admonished the Thessalonians (not Timothy) to hold to were in any way, shape, or form like the "traditions" that Rome holds to now. Merely pointing to one word, and trying to build an entirely anachronistic superstructure of pre-Roman Romanism is flatly ridiculous.
In fact, the only two places in the New Testament where "traditions" are discussed in a positive light (as opposed to the eleven places where "tradition(s)" is used negatively) are,
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (II Thessalonians 2:15)
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (II Thessalonians 3:6)
In 2:15, Paul specifically says that the "traditions" that the Thessalonian church was to hold to were those taught by word or by epistle. In other words, from the preaching of Paul and his helpers (recorded in Acts) or in the letters (including, presumably, the canonical letter of I Thessalonians) that he wrote to them. I see no logical reason to think that what Paul wrote in his letter(s) would contradict what he preached to them face to face, or between letters, if the plural "epistles" is not just a literary device used by Paul, and indicates that he wrote some other, non-canonical, epistles to them. Hence, there is no logical reason to think that the "traditions" given by Paul orally to this church would contradict anything appearing in his Scriptural letter, and by extension the rest of Scripture, since Scripture does not contradict itself.
As such, if Catholics wish to logically approach this issue, they still have to show where their doctrines are derived Scripturally (in context, both textually and theologically).
Statements like this only serve to make Roman Catholics look out of their depth in a discussion of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, God is a living God, not a character in a book. Protestants, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, seem to want to limit God to what it says in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of ancient writings that provide witness to Christ.
It contains the 4 Gospels-—books that detail the life, teachings, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
It also contains the writings of some of the early apostles like Paul, outlining various theological positions and dealing with common problems in the early Church.
******************
Well said. One might note how often a Protestant will ask a Catholic to explain a certain point, and add that the response cannot include anything not mentioned in Scripture. Can this divide ever be crossed? It seems not.
Why? Because you don’t understand it?
Not so, since sola scriptura is Scriptural error.
Willed by God the Father before all creation, Founded by God the Son (Matthew 16) and Instituted by God the Holy Spirit (Acts 1 & 2).
Christ didn’t say anything about the Catholic Church. He spoke of a church wherein the disciples (not just Peter, by the way) would use the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. No visible church today has any such keys. No visible church on earth today is the Kingdom of Heaven. No visible church on earth today could possibly get anyone into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Christ founded the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, we Protestants don’t have to worry about someone kidnapping Christ and holding him for ransom.
On the other hand, we protestants understand that “do this” means to actually DRINK the wine.
I think Tradition is fine, so long as it doesn't contradict scripture. And I don't think that "Sola Scriptura" should be interpreted as meaning there is no value in tradition, or in teaching -- after all, ever sermon would violate a "strict interpretation" of "sola scriptura", as the sermon contains words and explanations that are not found in scripture.
So long as the tradition does not add additional burdens unreferenced by scripture, or worse contradict scripture, I think it can be useful to help us live the lives God intends for us.
How many hands do you Protestants have?
You MISunderstand it.
Even ‘the church’ has not seen fit to add any books to the Bible, which seems to indicate that they don’t think there are new revelations by God that were not included in the text.
that makes no sense-—because many of the practices of the Catholic Church were being practiced not only before the final Canon was approved, but before the NT was actually written.
Christians were coming together, worshipping, sharing Christ’s teachings and celebrating the Eucharist before any of the 27 canonical Books of the NT Bible were written.
Paul’s 1st letter to the Thessalonians is usually dated between AD 48-52. The Epistle of James is sometimes dated to AD 45, but some date it later. Mark’s gospel is dated usually between AD 45 and AD 65.
But Christian traditions and practices had already begun to develop, and the Bible reflects this.
I suppose you could instead explain why “do this” for the bread means to eat it, while “do this” for the wine means not to drink it.
Or I could say you misunderstand the meaning of “is”, and we could continue that way for a while.
“Christ founded the Catholic Church.”
**********************************
If He did, He sure didn’t say anything about it.
Truman used to complain that he couldn’t find a one-handed economist.
the Cup is offered at Mass. Not always, but I have been to Church when the Cup is offered as an option.
What, by name? His words describe Holy Eucharist, Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Papacy, the organization of Bishops and Priests and, most of all, the continuing and unending guidance of the Holy Spirit for His Church after his Ascension.
yeah, but to all to many protestants, it is just wine. You miss the whole point of the rite.
Only if YOU are right and PAUL (1Co 11:23-29) is wrong.
***How many hands do you Protestants have?***
Are you a Mormon or a Catholic? Honest question both use the same argument.
My college church actuallly passed the bread and wine around the room, with the wine in a large chalise. Some people would dip the bread in the wine, others drank.
My current church gives out both wine and grape juice (I drink the wine).
There’s a lot of variability. In my old Lutheran church, we went to the front and kneeled, and the wafer was placed in our mouths, and the cup held to our lips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.