According to Scripture (Sola Scriptura)

http://www.catholic.com ^ | Tim Staples

[NKP_Vet]

"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.

What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Now of course you might disagree with these assertions”

---

Of course I do, I prefer Cyril’s assertion.

[Errant]

Tares Among The Wheat - Sequel to "A Lamp In The Dark"

[Iscool]

Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place.

Does it occur to any Catholics that the reason your religion rejects scripture alone is because that statement or idea can not be found anywhere in the scriptures???

[Iscool]

In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative.

No he didn't...You are misquoting the verse that you even posted...

The verse does NOT say oral and written traditions...It says, oral OR written traditions...

We can't pick one or the other...

We are to receive the tradition whether it was spoken to us from memory, we heard it being read to us or we read it for ourselves...It's all the same tradition...

So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

[Iscool]

If you add anything to them, God will make you suffer all the terrible troubles written in this book. 19 If you take anything away from these prophecies, God will not let you have part in the life-giving tree and in the holy city described in this book.

The Catholics tell us that warning applies only to the book of Revelation...

Apparently it's ok then to add to or delete God breathed words from the rest of the books...

[Gil4]

“The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening.”
The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119, and it is all about the primacy of scripture. Jesus spoke on it in Mark 7:6-12 and Matthew 15:3-9. See also Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Jer. 26:2, and Rev 22:18.

Now, the silence of scripture on the papacy, that is deafening.

“According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline.”

Court, yes. Legislature, no. The example that you cited in Matthew 18 does not indicate a reliance on scripture plus tradition, it is a commandment for men to use scripture to discipline others within the church. “If your brother sins” means “if your brother violates God’s Word”, not some tradition.

“In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be “one flock, one shepherd.””

That’s not exactly what He said there, and to teach that this verse indicates anything like the Catholic church structure is a major reach. There is one flock and one Shepherd, but that Shepherd is Christ, not some imaginary vicar of Christ.

“Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.” It has been very effective at establishing both, when it has been put into practice. When it’s not practiced, then there are problems (and there are MANY groups that you would call Protestant that don’t practice it. Some might give it lip service, but some don’t even bother.) If you think the scripture + tradition method produces great uniformity of doctrine and practice, you haven’t talked doctrine with many Catholics.

[Gil4]

“Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.”

There are plenty of people who know what to believe, who know what to desire, and know what to do, yet they reject it. (Mark 10:17-22)

There is only one thing necessary for salvation, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved...” (Acts 16:31)

[redleghunter]

Ah the fourth “Sola Scriptura” thread this week from a “sola Roma”.

I guess the burning pile of assertions in the other threads caused this one to combust.

[redleghunter]

According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline…

Please enlighten us with such scriptures.

[redleghunter]

That was a good quote but incomplete for context:
2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJV

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(KJV)

So Paul told Timothy he could search the Holy Scriptures to find salvation through Jesus Christ.

Then we have Christ say this as well:

Luke 24:25-27, 44-49 KJV

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

44-49

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.(KJV)

Clear to me Jesus was clear.

[boatbums]

According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God: So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

What do we have TODAY so that we can know it is the same thing Paul was talking about that Christians were to hold to? How do we know the "traditions" they taught orally weren't also the written ones they created for believers of all generations? Show us those traditions taught by the Apostles that are missing from Scripture.

That's why we can KNOW that "traditions" are NOT the same thing as the word of God. We have been given the "whole counsel of God", Paul said, and he left out NOTHING that Jesus revealed to him to be taught throughout the world - he WROTE them down.

Tim Staples misstates what sola Scriptura means. He also is ignorant of ALL the many books, writings of early church fathers, modern Biblical scholars and the many confessions of Protestants such as the Westminster Confession of the Faith and others. Maybe if he had really taken the time to study the faith of his family he would not have felt the need to convert to Catholicism.

[boatbums]

Good points!

[hosepipe]

True.. some christians worship the bible.. basically don’t really NEED God..

AND some worship their church ... and therefore do not need God...

others worship talismans, amulets and artifacts.. or even so-called saints.. or ceremonies..

but there is no need to be christian(but can be) for that, same deal, they really have need of an actual God either..

With some/maybe most, God, is just an excuse to feign religion..
but what they really “NEED” is something else..

With them.... telling them ,thats worship, will get them sucking their teeth... as they deny it..

BUT alas, IT IS...........................

[Petrosius]

Referring to tradition to support sola scriptura? Interesting if not contradictory!

[Petrosius]

Are you saying the Catholic Chuch can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholic Church’s authority?

In addition, not contrary. As a Catholic I find that there are many Protestant teachings that are truly contrary to the Bible. The truth is that Protestants are as wedded to their own traditions of interpretation as Catholics.

[Petrosius]

The “book” referred to in Revelations is only the Book of Revelations itself, not the whole Bible. The entire Bible would not be compiled into an agreed upon single volume for another 300 years; that is until Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament.

[CynicalBear]

>> The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith.<<

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Please prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. If you can’t the Catholic Church teaches another gospel. That applies to anything the Catholic Church teaches that isn’t in scripture. Scripture is the only evidence we have of what the apostles taught.

[Resolute Conservative]

My salvation is between the Lord and me not a priest and me. And it is Protestant not protestant less I write catholic.

[metmom]

Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say,....?

[metmom]

According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:

So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

How do you know?

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.