Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
-- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2
"According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:"
Tradition is being masde equal to The Word of God and I don't think that is what Paul is saying.
Whosoever should call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved
**I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it. **
That’s because it is a false doctrine of protestants and other non-Catholics.
Did you read the article? All of it?
Links to previous postings of this thread?
Did you get the point that the Jewish Apostles were able to speak on behalf of the LORD with authority, guided by the Holy Spirit ? If they said it that way, it was equivalent to Scripture even if it was not written, or even if it did not somehow survive. The issue is how do we know, and the canon of Scripture was not quite settled for some time. There are many things we cannot yet know, but what we can know should be sufficient to choose the way.
Paul also commends the Berean’s for searching the scriptures to prove the oral words are true. Acts 17:11
Sola scripture has brought God’s word to more people in places all over the world in their own languages than anything else.
Sola scripture has expanded the knowledge of Christ and salvation of more people than anything else.
Just historical fact.
The body of Christ is a body with all sorts of parts and different functions and roles.
No.
And I’m not going to.
It’d be nice to have an answer to my question, it’s yes or no. I’d like to understand this further.
Then how can you comment on it?
Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
So you are saying Catholics do not believe in the Bible?
I really don’t understand what your point is?
I didn’t comment on it, I asked a question.
I’m sure that you know more than me about Catholic teachings, and I’m fairly sure you’d say that the pope knows more than you. So can you please explain what he meant by the quote I posted in post #3?
..................
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
...........................
Sounds to me like he’s equating the bible to the koran and therefore muhammad to Jesus as a path to salvation. What am I missing?
Sure looks like declarative sentences to me. LOL! Not interrogative.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=30#30
For a perspective on the Catholic Church's historical view of the Bible and its past efforts to keep it out of the hands of the common man, watch "Tares Among the Wheat: Sequel to A Lamp in the Dark".
If it’s good enough for this guy, it’s good enough for me!
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
Tradition is the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament, not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate:
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.” (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)
I asked this in 2:
Are you saying the Catholic Chuch can say something contrary to the Bible and it is to be accepted as the word of God based on the Catholic Church’s authority?
On the relation of the Scripture to the Church, St. Thomas wrote, it appears in Not By Scripture Alone.
ST II-II, Question 5, Article 3
The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith.
Now of course you might disagree with these assertions but at least we have what this great Doctor of the Church believed. St. Thomas is well-respected among certain Reformed theologians as R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner — See Thomas Aquinas : An Evangelical Appraisal by Norm Geisler (Baker Books, 1991). I also find it curious how Geisler tries to make it appear Aquinas believed in sola scriptura in his Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker, 1995).
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.