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”?
I chuckled when I read that. We have a close friend who at 73 is still a sitting judge. I can just imagine the look on his face had a lawyer stood before him and used that line.
And second guessing the Holy Spirit doesn't seem like a good idea.
Skiing? A self professed hockey junky went skiing? Isn't that sacrilege or something?
Let's go to the Book ... it is recorded in scripture:
He took the child by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise!” Mk 5:41And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”* which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mk 15:34
That is Aramaic, not Hebrew, not Latin, not Greek. We KNOW from scripture that Jesus spoke Aramaic. For that reason, Mel Gibson's production of the Passion of the Christ uses Aramaic. According to Linguist Professor Geoffrey Khan of the University of Cambridge, the 3,000-year-old language was once common throughout the entire Middle East and was used for trade, government and divine worship from the Holy Land to India and China. It is also the language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud (a key Jewish text). Parts of the ancient Dead Sea scrolls were written in Aramaic.
The NT was God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired in Greek.
Speculating on what someone may have spoken and how it may have been said and what words may have been used to say it without any documentation or manuscripts is a waste of time and all it does is portray the person making the claims as looking like they are deliberately searching for something to impugn the very word of God.
So what’s the big problem that Catholics have with having Jesus Christ being the rock on which their church is built?
Isn’t He good enough for them that they need to substitute Peter for Him?
Hmmm, let me see. Jesus, who is the *petra*, the Author and finisher of our faith, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the One who died for me and rose again?
Or Peter, who denied Jesus, who rebuked Him, who was rebuked BY Him, who cowardly engaged in hypocrisy and led other believers astray, so that Paul had to rebuke him?
Wow. What a choice.
I know Whom I’m trusting to lead me.
Catholic reading skills need some work indeed.
Your background and educational qualifications in this area please.
Oh but there is another consideration. The word the Holy Spirit used for the name Peter is a movable rock at best and is often used for a stone that someone can throw. The word the Holy Spirit used or that which the "church" is built on is an unmovable rock.
>>So Scripture calling Abraham "the rock" doesn't negate or change that Scripture refers to God as "rock."<<
There seems to be an assumption on your part when reading Isaiah 51:1-2. When reading in the Hebrew it is the Lord who is called the rock. Your second verse is missing "and unto" which is in the Hebrew. Here is the English translation of the Hebrew word for word from the second verse.
Isaiah 51:2 alone for Him that bore Sarah and unto your father Abraham unto look and increased and blessed him
Except that, as shown (Post 232), Abraham is called "the rock." When you're trying to make the case for exclusivity, all it takes is one counter-example to rebut that point.
God being often referred to as "Rock" doesn't preclude Peter from termed that.
I'd commend your diligent efforts, except that looks like one long copy and paste of an image taken from elsewhere.
As the dominant language of the Byzantine Empire it developed further into Medieval Greek, the main ancestor of Modern Greek. [Horrocks, Geoffrey C. (2010). Greek: a history of the language and its speakers (2nd ed.). London: Longman. p. xiii. ISBN 978-1-4051-3415-6.]
When Koine Greek became a language of literature by the 1st century BC, some people distinguished it into two forms: written (Greek) as the literary post-classical form (which should never be confused with Atticism), and vernacular as the day to day spoken form. [Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.]
Koine Greek was the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300), and marks the third period in the history of the Greek language. [Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek language]
The mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek,[1][2] which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean[3][4][5][6] from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek [Henry St. John Thackeray Grammar of New Testament Greek ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Blass, 1911]
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw this....a catholic relying up on the Word for authority!
You're getting there. Keep going.
Again....to be clear. I never said Jesus did not speak in Aramaic.
He would have been fluent in Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew.
For that matter He would have been fluent in any language He chose to speak.
You ask what is my point. My point is that the phrase sola sciptura is not in the Bible. Many use that phrase as a sort of talisman upon which all thought stops. Now please understand, I am not referring to you as you appear to be reasonable.
Other thoughts: the scripture Paul was referring to was only the Old Testament. The New Testament had not been written.
In other writings of Paul he recognizes the authority of Apostolic tradition. See, e.g., 1 Cor 11:1, 2 Thess 2:15,Eph 2:20.
You state that most Catholic rituals are not contained in the Bible. I would agree. However I do know that confession and the Lord’s Supper are mentioned in scripture. Which rituals did you have in mind?
Riigghhttt . . . because of course you understand Catholic teaching here better than I do.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1.
You see, right out of the gate here, you cite to a source that shows you really aren't thinking through this clearly at all.
The First Vatican Council is the council that defined Papal Infallibility. The notion that somehow Vatican I is speaking against Petrine Primacy is ludicrous. But what I again perceive is your post here is again just big copy and paste; so this sort of blunder is commonplace.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,”
Exactly. It is often the case that a passage permits of more than one interpretation; this is somewhat common among the Church Fathers. So all the Patristic citations your list speaking of "the rock" as Peter's faith are just fine by me. That this should be so isn't difficult to understand, as if Peter can be separated from Peter's faith.
Ambrosiaster . . . 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life.
By the late 4th century when Ambrosiaster is writing, the "catholic faith" entailed a whole lot of things I suspect I'm much more in agreement with than you. Why you bring him into the mix is at this point a puzzle.
Augustine
It is absolutely ridiculous how some cherry-pick from Augustine to try to make him appear more Protestant in outlook. Here, as with about every other topic, the effort fails. Augustine is absolutely clear in associating "this rock" with not only Peter, but the entire line of apostolic succession on the see of Rome as the pillar of orthodoxy:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Whether you're disingenuously selectively sampling Augustine or whether you're just doing a fine copy and paste and don't know any better remains to be established. But you're way off the mark with Augustine in either case.
Basil . . .
Basil, like the Catechism, is one that, as I said, saw multiple interpretations:
"The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, Ch. 2.).
Chrysostom.. .
Again, another who states it both ways:
"Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called . . ." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)
"Blessed art thou" indicates Chrysostom has Matt 16 in view.
For now, I see no point in going through the same exercise as to the other Fathers cited.
As to the comments by Congar and Kenrick, these are Catholic writers who recognized Petrine Primacy. To fully appreciate their views it would be necessary to understand their comments in the context of their overall view on the topic.
Please show the post in which anyone denied that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Then please show proof that the Holy Spirit recorded His words in Matthew in Aramaic.
And this somehow negates it's impact?
If you say so.
Mary is dead and answers NO prayers.
Oh yeah...
Guys; while we're at it; let's say we're gonna be INFALLIBLE; too!
You state that most Catholic rituals are not contained in the Bible. I would agree. However I do know that confession and the Lord’s Supper are mentioned in scripture. Which rituals did you have in mind?
******************************************************
Confession of sin is in the Bible, but never mentions that is to be to a priest. We don’t need a middleman. I have access to confess to the throne through my high priest Jesus. To use a surrogate, in my opinion, cheapens the sacrifice of the cross. We can also confess our sins directly to those we sinned against.
Communion. Jesus tells us to do this in remembrance of him and we should. Nowhere does it say it must be administered by proxy. You can break bread and give thanks for his sacrifice on your own.
The catholic church has appointed itself the link between God and man. Baptism, communion, forgiveness and repentance must come through the catholic church. The catholic teaching implies the path to God was not through Christ alone but through Christ by way of the catholic church; demeaning to Christ, arrogant, ignorant, and foolish.
Not really. But no matter. Abraham being termed "the rock" does that sufficiently.
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.
![](http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/05/eb/77/43/basilica-di-santa-maria.jpg"/){kind=link}