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”?
No, He didn't. I thought we went through this already. Maybe it was with someone else. Anyway, Isaiah 51:1 is calling the Lord the Rock. In verse 2 it goes on to say "and unto Abraham".
“Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance,
you who seek the Lord;
look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were digged.
2 Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;
for when he was but one I called him,
and I blessed him and made him many.
"Look to the rock from which you were hewn . . look to Abraham your father."
The "look to" passages are put in parallel, showing they are speaking to the same thing, which is Abraham. The repetition is rhetorical.
"Abraham" is the "rock" from which the Jews were hewn and became many. His descendants are, so to speak, "chips off the ol' block."
This is really quite obviously unless one is diligently trying not to see it.
Ok, fair enough...you must have had the stuff on hand, as in pre-copied, then? No live links available. Not that there is anything the matter with that.
Do you use some form of RC apologetics software also? As in from a disk, or loaded from one? Just curious, for there was one here who many thought some kind of genius -- but is was the searchable data base catalog type of thing which he was using, cribbing from without providing attribution. He's gone now.
I've seen the Ireneaus quote a thousand times. But you seemed to have skipped clean over how Ireneaus did not begin with reliance upon "office" but of Scripture itself as carrying the Gospel, and that be the real storehouse of the Gospel -- which itself was the foundation and pillars of the faith.
The occupants of the office were not the foundation --according to Ireneaus. That varies from Scripture (Peter himself, wasn't it?) speaking of those of the Church being "lively stones", yet since many were lively stones, then all the talk of Peter being a rock upon which the Church was to be built STILL does not equal the way those of Rome, after centuries of pressing the issue, finally got their way, helping to cause and then solidify an irreparable schism with those among the various ecclesiastical communities of the East, that exists still unto this day.
The Ireneaus quotes do not support concept of Papacy. He writes of the Church at Rome being allegedly 'founded' by both Peter and Paul. So where is Paul's successor? All bundled up inside the Pope?
Up until that time. And he himself corrected a 'pope', a.k.a a bishop of Rome, steering that soul away from what was perceived heretical thinking.
Need I give you the fuller details -- or will you instead "read Ireaneaus in fuller context" as you yourself suggested?
To the portion I quoted, stressing that one part, you responded with nothing much further (other than to go for the oft cherry-picked later paragraph, to which you then added your own Romish assertions) "This from the person who is accusing other of selective sampling".
Oh really? What's up with that kind of snark? Besides, Webster DID prove his own case concerning selective sampling having been engaged in by Butler, Dahlgren & Hess.
In comparison, I was hiding nothing, for I provided a live link to where I sourced the small portion from. That's far more transparency & honesty than most [Roman] Catholics provide.
They seemingly NEVER quote the part which indicates that the Gospel is the foundation and pillars of the Church, and since time of the Apostles not being present to preach what they knew as primary witnesses, the Gospel was preserved in the Scripture. In this Ireneaus can be seen to be applying the principle of sola scripture, as in Scripture itself being ascendant as for rules of faith --- and which is where the most proper overseers and elders of the Church derive their own authority. NOT -- the other way around (the Scriptures meaning only what some "we" say they mean).
They both appealed to Scripture, but Arius was clearly departing from the same -- and that is what made the difference.
For one to hint around at "see? the ones with the best line-of-succession pedigree won" transfer what had won the day, from best exegesis --- to then further assume, a priori, that now the lineage of Rome will always get it right.
That's your end game, isn't it? And now today, Rome won't be dissuaded that it was ever wrong or ever can be, basing that on the circular reasoning that they simply cannot be (but everyone else can be and is).
It had little to do with line of succession. Athananius's own original bishop (or the one preceding him) had been accused of Sabellianism. So had a previous bishop of Rome. Modalistic thinking can be harmless enough...as long as one then does not attempt to go from a bare beginning of it, through a "if this-then that" type of process while not keeping the entirety of what the Scriptures have to say in the forefront of one's mind. See (Exod. 13:9, Exod. 13:16, Deut. 6:8, Deut. 11:18) for one of the oldest and most venerable principles in the Book.
The proceedings at Nicea were not led by Rome, although there was greater agreement with Athanasius from those of the Western Church and North African than there was from the East. Still, that does not mean that those of the Western Church would always be right -- about all things --- centuries later. So you have no real point. other than mostly innuendo.
Prove it. Show how and where. Or just keep wandering around, rambling from one assertion and set of those, to the next...
The rest of that paragraph which I copied the above from is just so much taking it all off into the bushes sort of thing. Webster was not arguing there was no succession to various offices, so you make a strawman, perhaps without being aware of doing so. It is not that the Church cannot have any ecclesiology & polity at all, for that was not Webter's main point at all (and is not among my own meanings and intents either) but rather the issue is --->what was the more original form which was passed on from Christ and the Apostles?
The difference can be what the succession to office actually carried with it, and in that case of what Webster was discussing, it was chiefly concerning the Papacy. The Romanist system of polity very much all hangs upon that.
Here I'll quote this, again;
Except for where they didn't, and then had to discuss it, and at times fight over it.
Even then that still provides no guarantee that all that which later "developed" within the RCC is correct (as for what those within the RCC say about Scripture) or even that the RCC in the main presently most widely and regularly teaches and preaches only that which was taught prior to and up until the era of Ireneaus.
Or else you could try an actually prove the Romish assertions that tend that direction, instead of all the wordy assertions backed by -- not much.
I would suggest that if one was hoping to find what was the most widely preached doctrines, the ones which are most important (and most all else other than that be secondary, if that?) then turn to the Scriptures, for it's all in there, not still runnin' 'round all these long centuries later, in "oral tradition".
HE is patient...
Nope; they come one after the other; meaning they speak to different things.
Isaiah 51:1 Look unto the Lord you that seek righteousness you that follow after unto me listen whence you are dug of the pit the hole and unto and unto whence you are cut the rock unto 2 alone for him that bore Sarah and unto your father Abraham unto look and increased and blessed him I called
Deuteronomy 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
God is the Rock, Abraham is not.
You have a lot of hostility to the Catholic Church. I don’t have hostility against evangelicals, in fact, I love them! Try love; it’s great.
Oh?
Izzat so?
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Anything else you want to add to my diagnosis?
Here they are again...
1. Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture”.
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.
4. While Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, in practice they interpret the Bible according to their own denominational traditions.
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.
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.
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?
9. Sola Scriptura is linked with the idea of that the Bible is easy enough for any simple person to understand.
10. Sola Scriptura has led to the thousands of divisions within Protestantism.
(Anyone else notice that two of The TEN are QUESTIONS; not statements?)
Show... me...LOVE!!!
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.”
Sorry; but I didn't find it here.
It must be implied; I guess.
If ya didn't LOVE someone; you'd probably not waste your few, precious, remaining minutes on the rock that sails around the Sun, trying to..
...teach, rebuke, correct and train others.
So every verse in Scripture is speaking of a different thing than the verse(s) before?
Clearly, you just make this stuff up as you go along. Or, perhaps, you can show where this rule of Bible hermeneutics comes from. Good luck.
"you are dug of the pit the hole and unto and unto whence you are cut the rock unto . ." Yep, real clarity there.
Deuteronomy 32:15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness . . .
I'm seeing now why so often you seem utterly confused in what you say.
These pieces of garbled phrasing say nothing to dispute my point that Abraham is called "the rock" out of which his descendants became many, like "chips of the block."
I have no doubt that you believe what you say there. God on the other hand says He knows of no other Rock then Him.
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."<<
But if you think you know of another one you go right ahead.
1. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(1) Look unto the rock.—The implied argument is, that the wonder involved in the origin of Israel is as a ground of faith in its restoration and perpetuity. The rock is, of course, Abraham, the pit, Sarah." ["Of course" meaning "this is totally obvious."]
2. Benson Commentary
He compares the bodies of Abraham and Sarah unto a rock, or pit, or quarry, out of which stones are hewn or dug; thereby implying, that God, in some sort, actually did that which John the Baptist said he was able to do, (Matthew 3:9,) even of stones to raise up children unto Abraham; it being then as impossible, by the course of nature, for Abraham and Sarah, in such an advanced age as they then were, to have a child, as it is to hew one out of a rock, or dig one out of a pit."
3. Barnes' Notes on the Bible
"Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn - To Abraham the founder of the nation. The figure is taken from the act of quarrying stone for the purposes of building; and the essential idea here is, that God had formed the nation from the beginning, as a mason constructs a building; that he had, so to speak, taken the materials rough and unhewn from the very quarry; that he had shaped, and fitted them, and moulded them into an edifice."
[Goodness, can anyone here see the parallel? "As a mason constructs a building" using the metaphor of raising an edifice, just as in Matthew Jesus says "I will build my church?" The "rock" in the OT being Abraham; the "rock" in the NT being Peter? Two figures who were each given a changed name? Anyone?]
4. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
"Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged; consider the state of Abraham and Sarah, when they procreated Isaac, from whom Jacob and all of you sprang; for so he explains the metaphor in the next verse. He compareth the bodies of Abraham and Sarah unto a rock [.}"
5. Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
"look unto the rock whence ye are hewn; which is in the next verse interpreted of Abraham"
6. Geneva Study Bible
" look to the {b} rock from which ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which ye were dug. . .
(b) That is, to Abraham, of whom you were begotten, and to Sarah of whom we were born."
So this compilation provides NINE commentaries directly addressing Is. 51: 1-3, not a single one of which says that "rock" in these verses refers to God!
"Rock" in Scripture is not exclusively used of God (primarily and nearly all -- yes; exclusively -- no).
Let the denial and obfuscation begin . . .
1 Corinthians 10:4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: 'When one rules over people in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,
Psalms 89:26 He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.
In that verse, the rhetorical question and answer ("Is there any other God; there is no other Rock") shows in THAT verse that "Rock" (capital "R") is being used synonymously with "a god." The point is there is but the One True God (see Commandment #1).
But "rock" doesn't always mean "God." If you think it does, you'll have a fun time explaining this verse:
"And some fell upon a rock [petra]; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture." (Luke 8:6) So is Scripture saying that when the seed (the Word of God) fell upon God Himself ('there is no other Rock'), that God (the "water of life") could not sustain His own Word due to lack of moisture?
Or should we instead apply the "Elsie Rule" (see Post 445) and say that since "Rock" comes after "God" in Is. 44:8 that they are different things? But applying that rule, we have a conundrum since then "Rock" would be a different thing than "God."
Oh, the difficulties that are presented in trying to defend the "no one else but God is 'rock'" position.
I suppose when one can't discern between when it's being used as a metaphor and when it's being used literally that would make sense.
And notice that in the OT verses where "Rock" refers to "God" that the "R" is capitalized, but that in Isaiah 51:1-2 "rock" is not capitalized, because there it's referring to Abraham and not God? Get it?
And in Luke 8:6 is scripture talking about actual seed falling upon an actual stony surface? Or it is a metaphor for the Word of God not being sustained in those who do not persevere till then end?
Hint: "Rock" is used as a metaphor in Is. 51, Matt. 16, Luke 8:6, and 1 Cor. 10. Can you not discern that?
In Luke 8:6 Jesus is saying it is “Like” a farmer planting. The planting example is real seed falling on real rocky ground. Comparing one thing to another is NOT metaphor. Saying one this IS another thing is metaphor.
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.