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”?
Well, then, what is the RCC’s problem with sola Scriptura and the fact that people can come to different interpretations of Scripture then?
It's a cult pure and simple.
That's only half the objection. I gave a expansive response in my post to you #209. I recall no engagement by you with that post at all.
For sure, the multiplicity of interpretations advanced by the SS adherents is to us very clear proof that Scripture is NOT 'self-interpreting.' But even more, as I noted (209), with the advent of the Protestant idea of SS, for the first time Scripture was divorced from the notion of an accompanying authoritative (human) teacher. And for the first time there was abandonment of the sense that visible division in the Church is something Scripture condemns.
Scripture gives an illustration of a division in views in Acts 15. Some thought that Gentiles needed to be circumcised (and when your Scriptures are the OT, they had much to search for in support). Others thought that was not necessary. Rather "letting Scripture interpret itself" they met and made a decision binding on the entire church. This model was followed for the next 1500 years. Granted, there were some who splintered off (e.g,, Nestorians, the Monophysite churches in the 5th century), but in the main considerable unity was preserved until the 11th century.
With the advent of SS, even within Luther's time he observed the rapid increase of conflicting beliefs and practices ("as many sects as heads" was his wording" at one point). And when different groups separated into rival theological camps (Luther v. Calvin. v. Zwingli, on onward) there was no mechanism left by which to resolve the conflicts. Protestants claim to exalt Scripture above all else, but then at the same time tossed out the very model Scripture gives us for resolving disputes and avoiding division.
Both of Luther's innovations were premised on things not directly founded in Scripture. SS was really the only position left after Luther rejected Church authority; and once Apostolic Succession was tossed out as the Scriptural and historic benchmark of authority, conciliarism was made impossible. Paul admonished those in Corinth for dividing into camps according to which person had baptized them. 15 centuries later "I belong to Luther," "I belong to Calvin" and "I belong to Zwingli" (who each espoused differing views on baptism) parallels the very denominationalism Paul was urging be avoided.
And this from those who are supposedly following Scripture. And the response about some unified "invisible church" is just more invention; such a notion is completely absent in history.
That's the problem.
and yet when it comes to their own magisterium, they are willing to allow for non unanimity.
On matters of faith and morals which have been defined, no, there is no room to say "on this point, the truth is ___" and say so contrary to Church Teaching. And while there may be differences of view over some matters not yet formally defined, the point is such are rarely cause for visible separation! I can't say the same for the SS crowd.
IOW, it doesn't HAVE to be unanimous.
If division were avoided, I'd take less issue.
I own a copy of the book. Though I admit to very much disliking rote typing, so a good portion of that I copied from someone who had already done the typing.
Nothing is out of context. What sort of context are you possibly suggesting would alter this sort of statement:
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).
The author is doing a straight-forward analysis of the pertinent verses. The same is true of most of the other quotes I gave.
It would be interesting to see what all of those whom were selectively quoted (in what you brought from the cherry-picking, Roman Catholic pom-pom waving book Jesus,Peter and the Keys) would have to say about the aspects of historical reality, prior to when Rome could not be dissuaded from the notion that it alone "held the keys" as it were.
Since what I quoted were all contemporary Protestant sources (well, one Anglican, so quasi-Protestant) who for the most part are simply examining Matt: 16:18 from a linguistic, syntactical and contextual perspective, I doubt their views would much be changed by historical points.
From there it can be seen that; seeing Peter, the man himself as "the rock" was not universal view among the early Church,
But "Peter, the man himself" is an overly narrow, strawman read on the Catholic view. Part of the limitation of Webster's documentation is that he's focused simply on that one verse, which is a key part of Patristic (and present Catholic) ecclesiology, but by no means the totality of it.
With Webster (and if not Webster himself, then some reading through what he assembles) there is a tendency to read the Patristic passages with at least two Protestant-oriented lens on. 1) viewing things in "either/or" terms and 2) reading "Peter's faith" or "the faith of the Church" in the narrow sense of acceptance of Jesus Christ, rather than in the more Catholic/confessional sense of "the totality of the truth passed on by the Church founded by Jesus Christ."
So when a Patristic statement indicates that "rock" is "Peter's faith" the negative inference of "not Peter" seems to be drawn. But it doesn't necessarily mean that. Without much question, the Patristic writers held to a view of the indefectibility of the Church, the church as "pillar and foundation of truth." Peter in Matt. 16;18 is sometimes stated to be a figure for the entire church. But Peter himself is most certainly part of that teaching church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
There are a great many other patristic authors also, but among the earliest ones, there are non that I know of which equate Peter's own role in the early Church to be inheritable only by whomever happened to become bishop of (the city of) Rome.
I quoted Ireneaus earlier, who points out the line of succession from Peter to Clement, noting that Clement wrote to address a situation going on in the church at Corinth. There's only about writing before him of whom we have records. Ignatius speaks of the church at Roman as "presiding" in love. The roots of primacy are there.
Though Webster does not address the writers, and those particular quotes from them which are in the note to which I here give reply
Right. My post was all about contemporary Protestant commentators. Your reply was all about Patristics and the link to Webster's patristic quotations. It seems you saw hit the "auto reply" button here a bit prematurely. :)
Wrong. "Petros" is a primary word.
I need to see the site you lifted that screen print off. It's not the Thayer's I can find.
Seems you weren't looking very hard: Source
What we have said is that Petros is a MOVABLE rock.
And the Thayer's excerpt I've copied in speaks of "unyielding, and so resembling a rock." It appears that "petros" and "petra" can be essentially the male/female versions of the same concept. In the NT, when a small stone is referenced, the word used is "lithos." (e.g., 1 Pet. 2:8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence . . ")
Obviously you haven't been reading our posts on the subject. At least I hope that's the reason you post that comment.
Read carefully. Both the citations I gave, for example:
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.and my comment both refer to "Bible scholars." You here are not Bible scholars. The opinions of bush-leaguers I'm excluding from that group?
Got it now?
Don't you know that LONG, self-referenced posts will typically get this treatment?
Terseness is a valued commodity here.
Let your yes be yes, and that other thing; too.
O...
K...
One man's stupidity is anothers denial.
And it only took 14 centuries to clarify it.
I see...
I'll make it easy for you:
The pope NEVER speaks infallibly.
A Majority vote of the Magisterium, analyzing what the pope has uttered, and putting THEIR vote of confidence to it; is what makes Infallible Words.
NO; you KNOW you can't.
Can you attempt to make us FR Prots defend what these other 'protestants' have said?
Probably not.
True; but you know that ONLY the ones that Rome accepts are the RIGHT ones.
Which ones are the poorly catechized ones?
Pfft!
That was then - this is now!
We are told who that πέτρᾳ (petra) is.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra) was Christ.
That is from the Holy Spirit through Paul. If you want to argue with the Holy Spirit you go right ahead. I will not.
Oh really? Do you mean, like someone's apologetics page (like I asked about)...or possibly from comments on some other forum elsewhere..."?
Someone who had already done the typing you said...well of course someone did. The question was who, and where did you copy it from.
I will ask you again;
Did you copy/past the items from that one book, from some other web page? If so, then it can be helpful for the sake of honesty to supply link to the source from which you yourself copied the information.
The (possible) wider contexts from which those same authors which were quoted (if they were much in the way of historians) may well have have written further as to how these things could have been viewed by the early Church -- which differs significantly from how 'Rome' alone came to view this sort of thing, using their own preferred chain of "if this, then that" sort of progression to then assert --- ultimate authority resided in the man Peter, and they alone were heirs to that same 'authority'.
Then again, since the promoters of "Papacy" who selectively quoted allegedly "protestant" commentators, likely as not would not include portions from those same writers they were quoting which would undermine their own overall argument, the "out of context" aspect would be most likely built-in and inherent to that book which you had somehow copy/pasted selected portions from. Webster demonstrated how the same writers of the book from which the quotes were extracted were themselves guilty of having edited quotations from ECF's, thus showing themselves to be a less-than intellectually honest & trustworthy source themselves, if but themselves aggregators of the writings and opinions of others.
The missing, wider contexts of where those quotes arose from, though listed in notation as for source, still leaves one needing to play a game of go fetch if one was hoping to see how those commentators may have been misrepresented, as in possibly implying that those persons supported the Papacy itself (as that came to be known), or else being used for the one item of word translation alone to support the concept of Papacy as having flowed from Peter alone, without any possibly otherwise existent caveats against that precise notion, coming from those some persons cited as being meaningful authority of some sort for the narrow issue of the translation work, itself.
Would not what the pastristic authors from the earliest centuries of the Church had to say, and the contexts in which those noteworthy individuals addressed the same issue be worth far more than a few isolated snippets of opinion from persons chiefly, otherwise obscure, and all but unknown to us? Metzger is widely known of, but is not without his own critics whom can make a case for having various disagreement that man.
In Websters' presentation, there was a small raft of Roman Catholic historians also, heavy hitters as it were, whom wrote towards what was the early Church's way of understanding what so-called primacy for the Apostle Peter was, and was not, with the "was not" being that it did not equate with there having been established a capital "P" Papacy, in Rome --- or even that that was the intent from the beginning.
Further, the patristic authors themselves quoted, enter into discussions of aspects of the Church faith and polity other than Matthew 16:18, which ranges toward this "totality of the truth passed on by the Church" which you mentioned, (as if no one other than those of Rome knows of those truths..?).
That's just so much vague had-waving which rather neglects you were just focusing upon the very same thing!
If there is any problem it was entirely predicated by the wide-spread and numerous usages of that one particular passage, and the cherry-picking of patristic writers commentary commonly engaged in by amateur RC apologists.
It was that sort of thing which brought on the effort to provide an extensive record of the wider contexts in which the patristic commentary can be found. It is those contexts themselves which is among the various evidences against the concept there was a "pope in Rome" carrying singular "Petrine authority" which other bishops were not also equally heirs of (if such a thing can be passed down to the extent some try to maintain it is).
In other words, the RCC and it's legions of apologists quite often are not telling the full story (even as they claim to, and claim to have "the fulness" of all which is desirable). Webster busted the writers of the book which you quoted from, showing how the cherry-picking blossoms into false representations.
Whatever this imagined Protestant lens is, it's not nearly as distorted as the Romanist lens which anachronistically (while relying in part on their own contemporary rhetoric) impose their own understanding of what "the totality of the Church" was, while including aspects which came about and became a part of religious thought, only in later centuries.
Unless you have seen what Webster brought previously and have carefully examined the entirety of that which is covered at those two links which I provided (an arduous task, I confess) from the time I posted that, to the time you replied passing verdict upon the same --- then you must be a speed reader. How much did you take time to carefully consider before dismissing all?
It is the details which flat blow away the claims of those whom write of the "keys" being given only to Peter -- and that passing down only through a line of bishops in Rome, or else all needing to derive their own authority as it were through that one locale and ecclesiastical community.
Webster described how that mention of "keys" was understood in the early Church, with the keys still belonging to Christ in the sense that it was the Gospel itself which the gates of hell would not stand against. THAT was what was given to the Church -- The Gospel (good news) of Christ's own sacrifice being payment in full for our sins, for otherwise there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.
How could that be a valid 'view" if they (all) held it at all -- for many early witnesses relied upon Scripture, and the witness of those of the Church which had not strayed from that. There were those others arising from within the Church, following their own reasoning and imaginings whom can be seen to have strayed. We know they strayed, and portions of the Church were correct enough in having opposed them (on general principle) Bishop Arius being a prime example of one whom needed to be opposed, for his own "if Christ was this, then He could not be that" or "If He was this, then He was this other thing" type of approach which ended in making Christ into a created being, wherein (to speak of things somewhat humorously) one could honestly enough say that Jesus was Jewish -- only on his mother's side (of the family). :^1)
As for the Church itself being the pillar and foundation of the Church, allow one early church notable to outline how the order of operations flowed, after the original Apostles had passed on;
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth. 1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
We see plainly enough, that according to Ireneaus, the ground and pillar of our faith was the Gospel which was preached, not the preachers of it themselves being the ground and pillars.
To the Sanhedrin, the Apostle Peter (and most of the others) were themselves very much with what equates with bush leaguers today.
Stick with the subject matter. Your own sneering expressions of your own opinions of others here are not welcome, as those things are just so much flame-baiting distraction.
And your post #308 ran about 22 paragraphs (the one you posted twice).
What's this you're saying about terseness?
True in the sense that I'd already accepted "upon this rock" referring to Peter before I ever knew who those writers were.
But my point is that when several note that that interpretation today is accepted by a majority of Bible scholars, then at the least one should acknowledge that interpretation is a plausible one. Right?
You are a thick one.
No, it is NOT listed as a root word. Look up above the photographic image I pasted in part to the Strong's portion for 4074 - Petros:
"Root Word (Etymology)
Apparently a primary word
See that? "Petros" is a primary word. It has 6 letters.
In the Thayer's lexicon section it is written as: Πέτρος
That's 6 letters: Pi (P), Epsilon (e), Tau (t), Rho (r), Omicron (o), Sigma (s). No letters were later added in that lexicon entry. It's defining "Petros," a primary word. And it defines "Petros" to include the meaning "rock . . unyielding, and so resembling a rock."
It is laughable that you -- a person whose Greek knowledge is so limited as not to be able even to understand root versus primary word, who can't count to 6 letters in a lexicon entry -- proclaim that these Bible scholars (who very likely have a good to superb knowledge of Greek) are just all wrong.
Right. Got it.
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.