Posted on 02/12/2015 2:17:57 PM PST by NYer
>
Do you know how to answer a non Catholic Christian who challenges you about the Bible?
Knowing how everybody loves lists, here are ten things every Catholic should know about Sola Scriptura:
1. Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture”. It is the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only source for teaching on doctrine and morality.
2. Sola Scriptura was one of three “solos” the other two being Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
3. Sola Scriptura which means “Scripture Alone” cannot be found in the Bible. The closest proof text is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” While this verse says Scripture is useful for these things it doesn’t say Scripture is the only source for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
4. While Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, in practice they interpret the Bible according to their own denominational traditions. Presbyterians have the Bible plus Calvinism. Baptists have the Bible plus their theological opinions. Lutherans have the Bible plus the teaching of Luther etc.
5. Jesus commanded and prophesied that he would establish a church, but he nowhere commanded or prophesied that a book would be written recording his words and works. This is why Catholics say the Church came first. The Bible came second. Jesus passed his authority on through the apostles–not through a book.
6. How could sola Scriptura be the only way for people to know God when, for most of history, the majority of people could neither read nor have access to books?
7. Protestants blame Catholics for believing late, man made doctrines that the early church had never heard of, but Sola Scriptura had never been heard of before the sixteenth century. Not only can it not be proved from the Bible, but there is no trace of the doctrine of sola Scriptura anywhere in the writings of the early church. The entire edifice of Protestantism, however, is based on the foundation of sola Scriptura.
8. If the only source for teaching and moral instruction comes from the Bible how are we supposed to answer the questions that arise about things that were never heard of in Bible times? How can the Bible instruct us about important current problems like nuclear war, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, gender re-assignment or genetic modification, cloning or a whole range of other modern issues. Only a living and dynamic, Spirit filled authority can sift the facts and come up with the right teaching.
9. Sola Scriptura is linked with the idea of that the Bible is easy enough for any simple person to understand. While the basic teachings seem easy to understand it is clear that the Bible is an extremely complex document which requires the insights of theologians, Bible scholars and linguists to understand clearly. Why else would Protestant pastors be required to go to seminary before being qualified to be pastors?
10. Sola Scriptura has led to the thousands of divisions within Protestantism. Because they couldn’t agree, even from the beginning, the Protestant leaders began to split and form their own sects. How could sola Scriptura be the foundation for the church when it leads to such division? How could this division be part of Jesus command and prayer that there be “one flock and one shepherd”?
Why bother arguing? They will believe what they believe as the Pharisees and the Sadducese believed. Yes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who will be used as a pawn of satan. He will use all religions who hate and despise the Catholic Church in an effort to destroy the Bride of Christ, in the same way they chose to destroy The Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer. Yet it will be the Bride of Christ who will follow the Bridegroom and will walk the way of Her Beloved spouse, Her Lord Jesus Christ. For She is aware that the road to Calvary is Her Salvation and She will repeat the same Words of Her Beloved. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do do.” She sees the Cross of Christ not as a humiliation, but as the Throne of Her Beloved. Why bother explaining to the viscious and those who hate the TRUTH? It will be Christ in His infinite Mercy who will call His Bride to heal mankind.
“I don’t think he would be buried in a Catholic Church anywhere.”
Well, there was no Catholic Church on Vatican Hill at the time of Peter’s death. There was a cemetery there, and the basilica was built centuries later on top of it.
And who decided what the “approved list” was?
Sorry, I read that wrong....still working on my early morning coffee. It still sounds like you get to decide what does or doesn’t contradict Scripture. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions.
Did you get an answer to this question?
The narrow minded bigots will say anything in desperation
Refresh my memory which Bible verse says:
1) Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492.
2) that America won the revolutionary war.
3) That prisms refract light.
4) That the Earth revolves around the Sun in just over 365 days.
Seriously, that is the best reply that can be offered?
Metmom Piusv asked if I received a reply. Please reply to all of us, so we are not kept in suspense.
It seems to drive them crazy when you actually hold them to a standard. This is the same person that whines that Catholics don't answer questions.
If Scripture is not the source by which all truth claims must be measured, what is?
For Methodists, it’s the Weslayan Quadilateral; Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
The entire religion is a lie, a myth, a farce...The Church ultimately calls itself Jesus/God...They are incapable of discussing any scripture at all...It's a foreign book to them...Reminds me of the Druids...
Please list them ... one, any or all.
There was no Catholic Church when Simon or any of the Apostles were buried...He wasn't buried in a church...A Church apparently was built on top of him...
Yes...Unlike Catholics we are bible readers...That's why we know Peter Magus being buried upside down is not in the bible...
As you probably know, a fragment from the work of Papias (c. 110 AD) states that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew, but we have no extant copies. Since this gospel was written by a Jew, Matthew the tax-collector, for a Jewish Christian audience, he would have spoken the same language as Jesus, Aramaic.
Because of its rich theological content, Matthew was used as the primary catechetical text in the early Church and was the gospel most quoted by the fathers. It presents a holistic and systematic perspective on Jesus, giving an account of his miracles and teachings while placing them in their historical and religious context.
On which doctrines do they disagree?
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
You could use a little bible education...
It is the Pharisees who were/are walking around in long robes acting pious...Like your priests...The Sadducees rejected the Ressurrection...They would have kept Jesus on the Cross...
She sees the Cross of Christ not as a humiliation, but as the Throne of Her Beloved. Why bother explaining to the viscious and those who hate the TRUTH?
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Heb_6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb_12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
You got the wrong throne...That Cross was a shame and an embarrassment to Jesus...If you would read the scriptures, you'd know what God thought about it and it's not the same as what your religion thinks about it...
The throne Jesus sits on is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father... Luk 23:36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, Luk 23:37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.
And as you know, Jimminy Cricket wrote that Jesus was particularly fond of shushi, but there are no extant copies of that either...So take it for what it's worth...
Matthew the tax-collector, for a Jewish Christian audience, he would have spoken the same language as Jesus, Aramaic.
Is the non extant Papias the same source that claims Jesus' language was Aramaic??? I suspect Jesus' language was any language he wanted to use at any given time...
Trapped in their own lies is what that is. And like you said, only reinforces the belief that Rome is the Babylon of Revelation. I couldn't believe the Catholic Church would make the claims about the time Peter spent in Rome when even scripture is clearly refuting them.
I didn't ask for hearsay. Nor do I base my beliefs on hearsay. Prove that Matthew was first written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Surely you believe God would be able to have preserved what He promised. There is no proof even of what Papias remark meant. The entire supposition of an original Matthew written in Hebrew is just that, supposition based on an unclear comment by Papias. To promote it as fact is ridiculous.
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.