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'm glad to hear you're leading bible studies. However, your statement that popes and other catholic authorities have been encouraging catholics to read the Word for centuries is challenged by this statement from the USCCB.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew. http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm
Josh, I disagree that the believer can just confess his sins to God and have his sins forgiven. See Lev 5:14-26 shows public confession with animal sacrifice. See also Num 5:6-7 (confess and make restitution); Matt 3:6 (”baptized by him [John the Baptist] as they acknowledged their sins”); Acts 19:18 (”Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices.); James 5:16 (”confess your sins to one another.”); Mark 1:5. Public confession was the practice of the early church. It is my understanding based on my reading of Tertullian that a priest under the authority of the Bishop, was present during the public confessions. Many thought that when the Catholic church to priests only it was being wimpy, too soft. But the idea that confession directly to God would have been abhorrent to the early Church. They knew that no sin is purely private. Each one damages the church. Jesus gave the power of forgiving sins to his Apostles. He said if they do not forgive a sin it is not forgiven. Jesus thought it would be a good idea to have middlemen so why do you believe you don’t. But hey, if you want to publicly confess your sins before the congregation, go to it!
You state: “The catholic church has appointed itself the link between God and man.” Well, no, Christ created his church as his bride. He appointed its first Bishops and told them to celebrate the Eucharist in his memory. He did not state that laymen or laywomen may celebrate the Eucharist. He told them they have the power to forgive sins. this is all in the Bible
Where and when did you do that?
You state mortal and venial sin are not mentioned in the Bible. However, the consequence of grave sins and sins that are less grave are in the Psalms. One of the psalms says something like, “Oh God, protect me from grave sins. If you knew your Bible better you would not have made this silly assertion.
Show me where Scripture states that the consequences for any sin is different from any other sin.
If you knew your Bible better you would not have list the real presence.
Show us where the term *real presence* is found in Scripture. If *sola Scriptura* is disallowed because it's not explicitly found in those words in Scripture, the so is all the rest of Catholic teaching, such as the *real presence* disqualified.
I think you are applying a double standard here. The Protestants In this thread are making just those sorts of arguments, “Jesus said.” I don’t recall you telling them that “Jesus said so” doesn’t cut it. Did I miss something?
Second, I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence: “It’s Jesus’ body that HE died to redeem. Not Peter’s.” Since you capitalized HE, I assume you mean Jesus. Thus, I read this sentence as meaning that Jesus died to redeem the body of Jesus. Is that what you meant?
Scripture references should be added. If someone is going to claim that Jesus said something, they need to post a link to the verses where it's found and not just claim that Jesus said it. Unless it's verified someone could claim that Jesus said anything.
Second, I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence: “It’s Jesus’ body that HE died to redeem. Not Peter’s.” Since you capitalized HE, I assume you mean Jesus. Thus, I read this sentence as meaning that Jesus died to redeem the body of Jesus. Is that what you meant?
Yes. Jesus died to redeem those of us who are His body, the church.
Peter didn't die to save mankind. He couldn't cause he was only a fallible man.
Josh, I disagree that the believer can just confess his sins to God and have his sins forgiven. See Lev 5:14-26 shows public confession with animal sacrifice.
*******************************************************
I stopped attending mass more than 30 years ago. Are you saying now I have to confess to a priest and slaughter a goat?
Look, this is why I try to stay out of these debates. I can’t change your views, God has to show you the truth. I left the CC when I began to study it’s history without the catholic slant clouding my studies; please spare me the satan got me garbage. The CC is like the JW’s I witness to. You take the same scriptures out of context and ignore every scripture given in response to show your view is wrong. I must admit you are getting a little off the crazy train to bring up Jews and sacrifices. Just a little FYI; Animal sacrifices ended with the final sacrifice. There was no need for them anymore. With all due respect your reference to Leviticus displays bondage to the catholic teachings of self sacrifice and an ignorance to the gospel of grace. I will pray that you find the truth but will not banter back and forth with these old, tired, proven wrong attempts to defend your teachings. God’s grace to you.
It is evident. Peter was the first called. Whenever the Apostles are named in the NT, Peter is always listed first. Many times it's just "Peter and the disciples." Peter is the one called "rock." Peter is the first to be promised the keys to the Kingdom. Peter is told to "tend my Sheep," which signifies him as shepherd of the whole of the church.
There are a number of things like this that can be observed.
Bishops and elders who do not resemble at all the offices the RCC has instituted.
The NT church was a church in its infancy. The church grew; the church matured. The society and culture today does not resemble the first century. But I see how the basic structure of church governance can be observed in the NT; this is brought forth more clearly in the immediate centuries following the Apostles.
The rock is Christ. Paul identifies the rock as Christ in plain, simple, clear words.
* * *
You need to refute that and show how that is wrong.
There's nothing wrong about what Paul says. What's incorrect is your assumption that 1 Cor.10:1-4 has anything to do with what Jesus is speaking of in Matt. 16
In Matt. 16, Jesus is emphasizing the core confessional truth of the future church and making a poin about the ecclesiastical foundation.
In 1 Cor. 10, Paul is showing how the Christ was prefigured in the OT.
These verses are directed to completely different points.
"The rock was Christ" isn't some bit of clarifying text Paul writes with Matt. 16 in mind. The subjects are different. (Matthew's gospel was composed after Paul wrote First Corinthians, in any event).
Not kinda. Abraham being called "the rock" shows that "rock" isn't exclusive as to God.
If "all" in Scripture meant in every case "each and every one with no exception," then you would have a point as to Mary. But most often it isn't used in that absolute sense.
So these are different.
I'm not ignoring them. You posted this entire thing back at #236. I went through and covered most of that in my Post #253. You ignored nearly all of my response, other than to change the topic to distract from your gaffe of citing to Vatican I (the most strongly pro-Papal council ever) when trying to argue against the Papacy.
So here you are now, tossing up the same stuff. This is rather typical of Catholic critics: challenge, ignore, repeat.
Again, why you think digging into Vatican I helps you on this topic in a mystery. Though, as is most often the case, I suspect you've just copied this entire pre-formatted post from somewhere with little clue about the overall topic.
Archbishop Kenrick was one who opposed promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility at Vatican I. So it's no surprise he advances a more skeptical view of Patristic support. His argument was found lacking by the Council.
Though, to his credit. Archbishop Kenrick didn't then go and declare his view was superior and go form his own denomination. He accepted the decision of the Council.
The disciple of the Apostle John, bishop and martyr is not one to be forgotten. He is instructive on the larger topic of Petrine Primacy, but for the moment I was keeping on the narrower topic of Matt. 16:18. Nothing in the extant letters of his speaks directly to that verse.
But his time may come. :)
So?
If it WERE found in the Bible; then Rome would be QUICK to cry...
Rome has NO problem with a lot of IT's doctrine not being found in Scripture; so why the oneway whine about Sola??
Ha ha!
Say WHAT???
Yeah.
We can't change theirs, and they can't change ours.
BUT...
...we CAN be like Lazarus and that Great Gulf Fixed:
Send a message to his brothers so that THEY won't go to that awful place!
1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth [Jesus]."
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church
5 Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa
8. The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An "Extra-Biblical" Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is "Self-Authenticating" Does Not Hold Up under Examination
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the invention of the printing press in the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
BWAHAHAHA......
Are Catholics THAT desperate to denigrate and undermine the inherent authority of the very God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Word of God that they will go to those kind of lengths to disqualify it?
That screams of desperation if ever I saw it.
Did God REALLY say....?????
While they completely ignore....”it is written”; “these things I have written”, etc.
You misconstrue my post where I cite Leviticus. Of course animal sacrifices are left in the dustbin of history. The reason I cited that was to demonstrate that the expiation of sin was a public affair. You say that Catholics take Bible citations out of context. Catholics have the same complaint of Protestants. You did not address my other New Testament citations. Those show that Christ authorized his Apostles to forgive sin. Do you deny that? We Catholics are well aware of and believe in the grace of God.
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.