Posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:50 PM PDT by Salvation
What other standard is there then? What did the Catholic church set up as necessary that God didn't include in Scripture?
Are you saying the Catholic Church 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?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059418/posts?page=828#828
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
So what is so important that God forgot to include in Scripture that the Catholic church has to claim that it has the secret knowledge of.
Cause not one Catholics yet has posted those traditions Paul was referring to.
Hey, you need to post a list of all the place that tradition is mentioned.
Then we can see what Jesus said about tradition.
That's only an assumption. There's know way to know that it was not written down later when he had the opportunity, as with all the rest of the instructions and teachings the apostles gave.
But that’s a caricature of Sola Scriptura. No one who understands it would teach it that way. Much of this debate is wasted gumming away at the edges because we aren’t talking about the same sufficiency Lets take another look at Paul’s admonition to Timothy:
2Tim 3:15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
We know that the Pharisees’ lack of comprehension was not some lack in the word of God. If they wouldn’t believe the law and the prophets concerning Christ, they wouldn’t accept a resurrection either. They did not have the Holy Spirit. They’d rather blaspheme the Holy Spirit than listen to Him. The fault was in them, not Scripture.
But we do know that for the man of God, who by definition DOES have the Holy Spirit, and is receptive to Him, Paul is recommending Timothy use Scripture as his primary resource for gaining 1) wisdom unto salvation, 2) doctrine, 3) proof of error, 4) for correction of faults, and 5) the cultivation of righteousness. In fact, so “adequate” is this one resource that Paul says it can make a man of God completely ready for any aspect of the Christian life.
So here’s the crux of the matter: If the Scriptures can completely equip the man of God, so that he is both wise to the way of salvation in Christ, and able to do everything a believer needs to do, and he can do this with God’s word, then by extension whatever may be learned about God outside of God’s word is either A) already expressed IN God’s word as well, or else 2) is not necessary either to salvation or to fully equipping the man of God for all righteousness.
Therefore, if some modern group of people comes along who claim to speak for God, we are duty bound to compare their teaching with the known revelation. If a discrepancy appears, who’s word should we accept? Those who merely claim to speak for God? Or the God-breathed words of Scripture?
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Here Paul is adamant that no one should modify the basics of the Gospel he had already delivered to the Galatians. Even if the purveyor of allegedly new or hidden information was an angel from Heaven, they were to reject that teaching. Why? Because it didn’t exactly match Apostolic teaching, which as Paul says, was not of his own invention, but by direct revelation from Christ. And here’s the thing. He expected them to pick up on the discrepancy ON THEIR OWN. He was surprised they had fallen into deception so quickly. They had the pattern of divine revelation on the matter, and did not use it to protect themselves from false teachers.
And Paul, in laying down that pattern again, only this time in writing, says nothing uniquely Roman Catholic. The Gospel presented in Galatians is the same one taught in every Gospel preaching church across the entire globe, that rule-keeping can’t save anyone, only real repentance from sin and sincere faith in the crucified and risen Christ.
I must go to bed now.
Peace,
SR
Apparently it was; or JESUS would not have told THIS little story:
Jesus told his disciples:
Luke 16:19-31
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Interesting addition your church has convinced you about...
NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The goalposts need to go back and the man needs a bit more straw.
NO has said what you have just typed.
Your chosen religion TEACHES that you CANNOT rely ONLY upon the information in the BIBLE; you MUST have the OTHER things the church teaches to 'be saved'.
Then it should be quite easy to RE-post these, so that NEW lurkers coming upon this conversation we are having, will be convinced of your chosen religions teaching...
Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Prove that a person NEEDs the EXTRA teaching of your chosen religion to attain these worthy goals and you've done a yeoman's job.
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Convince John that MORE is needed...
True, not ALL; but enough.
Convince a LURKER, that has a BIBLE in his hand right, now that he NEEDS the extra CATHOLIC teachings 'to be saved'.
They make the claim that they compiled our BIBLE for us; and then, OTOH, admit they FAILED to include enough 'teaching' in it.
Strange logic at work here.
This is a Catholic petard.
Let one of THEM hoist it!
But...
...that's all we got!!
--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!)
Yup. So best keep in mind that a protestant is just a rabbit digging in a Catholic yard.
Thanks for posting this. Saving for further reference.
Thanks for the wonderful comment.
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.