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”?
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
That sort of thing might cause her some serious cognitive dissonance. "Religion" is apparently a bad thing for her. Though not necessarily so in Scripture.
Pretty much. Which is far more than you addressed in my reply -- which was essentially nothing. You just tossed up the same post I'd already addressed.
But notice how most every time a Catholic puts up a long post with many points how y'all mostly ignore it. Yours is but another example.
First of all NOTHING in scripture has ANYTHING to do with the way the Catholic Church has twisted the meaning of either of those verses.
Pffft! You can't make me!
You are confused. My pointing out calmly why some of your arguments are stupid (like citing to Vatican I when you're trying to argue there isn't support for my view on the Papacy) isn't anger. It's just showing why you're off the mark.
Why do you, a devout Catholic, fail to go along with what Rome puts out?
I do go along. Conduct isn't always perfect, but then again we all fall short of the ideal mark as to what we profess, no? (Let she who is without sin . . . ). Vatican I defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I agree with the theory, which is grounded on a long line of thought relating to the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See. Augustine is exemplary on this point:
“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]).
Here Augustine affirms the doctrine of the infallibility of the church and in particular cites to the succession of bishops from Peter ("Apostolic Succession") to support his argument about the historic orthodoxy of the Roman See.
What Vatican I said in the 19th Century makes more explicit what what Augustine said in the 5th Century.
What are you contending I'm not following?
So how does one know that the pope is speaking infallibly?
Because he says so?
They are good at that, hoping no one notices. Thanks.
If I can't accept Catholic views as to "upon this rock," can I accept what many Protestant writers now accept? Here's a sampling of some critical commentary on this point:
Here's a sample of some of the non-Catholic commentary on this point:
Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places).
(R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .
The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .
In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .
D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter's faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, "Peter," Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O'Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.
(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter's authority to 'bind' or 'release' will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven's will.
(William F. Albright [Methodist] and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198)
Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the 'rock' on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.
Robert McAfee Brown, in McCord, Peter J., ed., A Pope For All Christians?, NY: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7.
Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of 'Kepha'/'kepha', there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference 'Petros'/'petra'? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . .
K. Stendahl in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p. 787.
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent ; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.
Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92.
What Jesus speaks of, however, is not merely building his Church, but building it "on this rock." What does it mean when he declares, "You are Peter (Greek Petros), and on this rock (Greek petra) I will build my Church"? Many volumes have been written dealing with the interpretation of this important passage; 3 the space available here allows only a brief discussion of its meaning. The play on words in the Greek text of Matthew's Gospel (between the proper name Petros meaning "Rock" and the ordinary word petra meaning "a rock, a stone") is even closer in Aramaic, the mother-tongue of Jesus and his disciples. In Aramaic the same word kepha' serves as a proper name ("Cephas") and also means "a rock, a stone." Therefore, Jesus' conversation with Peter would have continued as follows: "And I tell you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha' I will build my Church." The obvious meaning of this surely is that Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his Church. Source
Bruce Metzger, Prof. New Testament Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary.
(Source (other than Metzger quote): Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Pub. Co., 1996, pp. 215-279. )
So Catholics are supposedly twisting things in order to get "upon this rock" to refer to Peter? Yet here are all these non-Catholic (Protestant) commentators advancing the same points I and other Catholics have been making -- the Aramaic origin, the word-play between Peter and Jesus's designation ("rock"), that "this" refers to the nearest antecedent noun (Peter), the natural grammatical read of the sentence, etc.
Now, these commentators obviously don't agree with Catholics on the future ecclesiastical implications of Peter being called "rock" in this passage. But they all agree that Peter is indeed the "rock" upon which the church will be built.
The "twisting" argument fails.
Now, will the response to this be the usual crickets? Or one or more persons with far lesser credentials in exegesis exalting their superior knowledge? Either will be amusing.
What’s wrong with Jesus being the Rock on which the church is built instead of Peter?
Hmmm. Maybe that particular translator got sloppy. Surely, this will become apparent:
27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (RSV)
Oh. Another sloppy translation. Moving on . . .
27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)
Oh, c'mon. Sloppy. Sloppy. But the RSV and NIV are suspect translations, right? How about one that attempts to stick close to the original Greek:
27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained [a]by the world. (NASB)
What? Yet more sloppiness? How about we go back further in time, away from any modernist influence. The Geneva Bible. Geneva, home of John Calvin. No fan of the Catholic religion was he.
27 [a]Pure religion and undefiled before God, even the Father, is this, to [b]visit the fatherless, and widows in their adversity, and to keep himself unspotted of the world. (Geneva)Uggh. It's just so hard to believe how all these translators can be so sloppy! Now, surely, SURELY, the inspired translators of the King James Bible, faithful to the Textus Receptus, must have gotten it right.
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (KJV)
OK, we are forced to a choice here. Either all these translators with their Greek linguistic knowledge all dropped the ball a bit here. Or someone named "CynicalBear," a person with likely no expertise in Greek, is being a bit foolish.
Yeah, I'll pick the latter.
Newsflash! "Religion" isn't some sort of dirty word. It's OK. You can use it. And so can I. And it's not "pathetic."
The better question at this point is: "You asked this twice now, and I've already answered it: is there a reading comprehension issue hindering you?"
Nor does it fit with Protestant’s belief that they can receive expiation merely by confessing directly to God.
You make excellent points. BTTT
I had intended to reply sooner, but allowed tabs to be spread from my desktop to somewhere near Kansas, making those near the ends of the row a bit difficult for me to find again.
Ok, so I exaggerate (a little). It's only a few hundred 'tabs' (usually, at any one time) and they don't stretch to Kansas. It just seems that way. ;^`)
Christians are to forgive those who have done wrong to them. That is not the same as receiving Divine forgiveness.
You state, “You want to pick one, I pick one. Now what do we do?” Well for a start, we can show mutual respect because there are Biblical passages that can support either position.
The "church" is infallible? Seriously? Was the "church" infallible when they said no one who is not in subjection to the pope is saved or when they changed that to say that even those who are not subject to the pope are saved?
>>Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement<<
What is it with Catholics who simply take the rewritten made up history put out by the Catholic Church? Anyone who does a serious study of the history of the church in Rome should know that to assign a single "leader" in Rome for some sort of "single church" is total nonsense. Here is just one statement as an example.
"Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34). [McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34.]
McBrien was a Catholic priest and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Information on him can be found here. He was also the general editor of the Encyclopedia of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church claims Linus succeeded Peter. That is neither shown in scripture or history. Anyone who does a cursory study can easily see that what the Catholic Church claims is fallacy.
This is a topic I no longer spend much time on. There are two Papal encyclicals which are without question accepted by all Catholics (who care to think about this question) as being ex cathedra -- Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissmus Deus. In both cases, before issuing the document, the Pope polled the Bishops of the Church and got near unanimous agreement on the doctrine. Now, under Catholic theory on the infallibility of the church, whenever the Bishops (as successors of the office of bishop originally held by the Apostles) all speak in unison on a matter of faith and morals, that point is ipso facto an infallible dogma. So the formal Papal pronouncement in these cases, IMO, didn't really add anything. It's a bit of two paths to the same dogma.
There is some debate among Catholic theologians as to whether some other encyclicals meet the Vatican I definition. But it's not a question that keeps Catholics up at night wondering about.
Religion is not a relationship with Christ.
It’s simply works one does for whatever reason, usually to earn a place in heaven or appease a wrathful God.
Cynical Bear posted a good comment about the meaning of the Greek word for *religion* in James.
It’s this......
http://biblehub.com/greek/2356.htm
threskeia: religion
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: threskeia
Phonetic Spelling: (thrace-ki’-ah)
Short Definition: ritual worship, religion
Definition: (underlying sense: reverence or worship of the gods), worship as expressed in ritual acts, religion.
*Near unanimous*? So it’s not the pope himself who decides it but he gets to make the pronouncement?
If the Holy Spirit is leading them, it had better be unanimous.
So how does this happen?
Does the pope get up there and proclaim (something to the effect of) Thus saith the Lord?
Does he get a *feeling*? Sit in a certain chair? Have someone else tell him? Make the decision on his own that it ought to be ex cathedra? Or is he just a figurehead who gets the privilege of making the pronouncement that others decided?
And how do they decide? VOTE on it?
There so many assumption built into that question it's a challenge to know where to begin.
Dr. Ludwig Ott in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmawhich is a well-recognized treatise) states the dogma thusly: "Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation." "Subjection to the Pope" isn't wording he includes. Whether his phrasing necessarily includes the later is debatable.
Then there is the question whether more recent statements on the topic (e.g, Vatican II) purported to state new dogma. Most say "No."
In any event, you're assuming that the older and new statements are not reconcilable. I believe they are.
The CCC states:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation [extra ecclesium nulla sales], often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
I see this in harmony with "old school" definitions on sin as stated in things like the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 280. What is mortal sin?
A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.
Q. 281. Why is this sin called mortal?
A. This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.
Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.
***
Q. 284. What does "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will" mean?
A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.
Certainly, in the Catholic view (and the Scriptural view, e.g., Gal. 5:19-20, Rom. 16:17) division within the Body of Christ is a 'grievous matter,' thus schism is often called the "sin of separation." But Vatican II makes clear that this is a mortal sin (affecting salvation), only when it is committed knowingly and willfully (as with any other grievous matter). But since those outside the Catholic Church today likely possess neither the true knowledge nor the wilful disobedience which are (and always were) required for condemnation to follow, Vatican II can be read congruently with the older pronouncements.
But those who are bent on finding a contradiction to further their own agenda will continue to find it.
The Catholic Church claims Linus succeeded Peter. That is neither shown in scripture or history.
There is historical evidence from Irenaeus of Lyon who writes in the late 2nd century:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles[.] (, III, 3, 3)
Whether or not at the time of Linus there is clear evidence of a "monarchial bishop" doesn't particularly concern me, given that there is no historical evidence during that period of anyone treating the 4 Gospels as scripture on par with the OT. (Irenaeus is the first historical witness identifying 4 Gospels attributed to M, M, L, & J, respectively). Books like Hebrews, James, and 2nd Peter were disputed until well into the 4th Century.
Yes, ecclesiology in general and the Papacy in particular developed over the initial centuries. So did the canon of the NT. So did the doctrine of the Trinity. I accept development of all three.
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.