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”?
Only as a last resort in settling disputes between believers.
It is no support for confession to a priest.
That “tell it to the “church” does not mean some conglomerate religious organization. It was the local assembly of believers that person was normally meeting with.
Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
How many times do those verses have to be posted for you? Do you simply ignore them and ask the question just one more time hoping you will find someone who doesn’t know scripture or what?
Also, Jesus put a lot of responsibility on the individual believer to resolve issues himself.
Going to the church was a last resort.
That just messes up the Catholic Church control. They tell us that's hate.
Try again. You just ignore the clear words of Scripture.
So Christ established His Church with teaching authority, and handed it over to every 3 or 4 folks who got together?? Is that what you are saying?
And what if your church disagreed with the church across town?
Like these?
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Or these?
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book), and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Or these?
Jeremiah 30:2 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.
I don't ignore them at all. It's Catholics who ignore them or perhaps don't even know they exist.
Which Church?
That's between them and God as long as they don't try to teach their error to the public. Then I would have to counter with scripture just like we do with the error of the Catholic religion here. If they persist in their error they surely wouldn't be allowed to meet with us.
Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53
You make no sense whatsoever. What is your point?
So it is your way or the highway. I get it.
Christ wants us to be one, not many.
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1Cor 1:10-17
My point is that Jesus would have been breaking the law against eating blood and your understanding of “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” is in error. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John were told to “eat the scroll”. That did NOT mean to actually eat the physical scroll. It meant to internalize the information and words of God.
He did NOT say to join with those in error but to separate from them.
What of it? Not everyone is as much a control freak as the Catholic church.
It would fall under what Paul called disputable matters (Romans 14) if it was not an area that was important for salvation.
And if it was, they answer to God for it but they don't take down hundreds, thousands, or millions of people with their false teaching.
The damage is contained in smaller numbers. Not as many people are going to be affected by it.
The church the believers who are in the dispute are affiliating with.
The church the believers who are in the dispute are affiliating with.
Their local assembly of believers, who know the people and situations far better than a top down hierarchy located miles away or on another continent altogether.
The Church is a union of the earthly and the Divine. Jesus Christ, who calls Himself the cornerstone, established the Church on the foundation of the Apostles. Among the Apostles, Jesus designated one with a primacy, calling him "the rock." The visible church on earth is governed by men, but shepherded by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Why pick something inferior?
I see nothing inferior in accepting a visible, earthly church established by the cornerstone, Jesus Christ. You're here slipping back into your "instead of"/either-or thinking.
And *Jesus said so* doesn’t cut it because the interpretation of that passage is not as clear cut as RC’s would like to present it as.
But since I very truly believe "Jesus said so" (and there are a host of contextual, grammatical, and historical reasons I think that) then it's a very good first cut.
Even the RCC’s CCC states that the rock that the church is built on is Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah.
Yep. And the CCC also says "upon this rock" refers to Peter. We're a 'both/and' -- not 'either/or' -- kind of people. As I've said above, given it's rather artificial to separate Peter from Peter's faith, I have no problem accepting both readings.
It’s Jesus’ body that HE died to redeem. Not Peter’s.
Actually, Jesus's body was not in need of redemption. He's the Redeemer, not one of the redeemed. Peter's body, by contrast, was in need of redemption. As with all of us.
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.