Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[Heart-Rest]

"Why thanks!"

=============================================================

Sure!

(He's also behind all falsehoods, and he's behind all attacks on the Church founded by Jesus Christ, as well as being behind all attacks on Jesus Christ Himself.)

[Heart-Rest]

"Nice segue into yet another rabbit trail."

=============================================================

Your unusually frequent and pronounced attention given to rabbits, and Mormons, and bellybutton rings, might help to explain why you post so many posts.

[Heart-Rest]

"Darn that's a really big haystack you've built there! Too tired to actually form the straw into men?"

=============================================================

Well, that sure is a huge stack of posts listed there (and it is an even bigger stack now), but I would never mis-characterize those posts as "hay" or "straw". There is another, far more accurate name for them.

(And this thread is way too long already, so I'm going to find a more inspiring thread to peruse.)

Good evening to all men and women of good will here.

[metmom]

(Keep in mind, some Protestant denominations teach that you cannot wear any jewelry at all, and some Protestant denominations teach that you can wear jewelry, so who knows what Sharpton might advise you to do. It's that "sola scriptura" thing again.)

So what?

Disagreement on wearing jewelry is not a solid case against SS.

Do all Catholics agree on everything that the Catechism of the Catholic church teaches?

Is there salvation outside the Catholic church or not?The CCC says *no* and then turns around and says *yes*. So which is it?

Have you read Romans 14 lately? Ever hear of *disputable matters*?

Believers are not obligated to follow lockstep any one church's interpretation the same way Catholics are with their CCC.

It's that freedom thing that seems to so irritate RC's.

[Heart-Rest]

"Believers are not obligated to follow lockstep any one church's interpretation the same way Catholics are with their CCC. It's that freedom thing that seems to so irritate RC's."

=============================================================

metmom, something can't be true and not true at the same time. That is logically impossible. Either it is okay to wear jewelry, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

That same principle holds true for all of God's Holy Truths.

• Using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim abortion is permitted by God, and, using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim abortion is not permitted by God.

• Using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim euthanasia and assisted suicide are permitted by God, and, using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim euthanasia and assisted suicide are not permitted by God.

• Using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim homosexual "marriage" and homosexual sexual activities are permitted by God, and, using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim homosexual "marriage" and homosexual sexual activities are not permitted by God.

• Using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim water baptism is necessary for salvation, and, using sola scriptura, some Protestants claim water baptism is not necessary for salvation.

• Using sola scriptura, some Protestants believe you cannot lose your salvation, and, using sola scriptura, some Protestants believe you actually can lose your salvation.

(Some of those questions are the most important questions a person can ask. For example, if the Protestants who, using sola scriptura, believe that it is possible for a person to lose their salvation are right, all those Protestants who believe the opposite using their own sola scriptura may be putting their eternal souls in grave danger. Do you see why the answer to that disputed question is so vitally important? They can't both be right. Either you can lose your salvation, or you can't, and some Protestants (using sola scriptura) believe and teach that you can lose your salvation, and some Protestants (using sola scriptura) believe and teach that you can't lose your salvation. They can't both be right, and that is an extremely important question, in the big scheme of things, as the fate of a person's soul may depend on it.)

That sheds light on the big problem with depending on sola scriptura. The contradictory, conflicting, incompatible, mutually exclusive teachings and beliefs that sola scriptura gives to different Protestants, means that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be right and correct in their beliefs, and that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be wrong and incorrect in their beliefs, and sola scriptura provides no way for either group to determine with certainty which group is right, and God help those who get it wrong through sola scriptura.

(Now I've got to go, so I'll bid you goodnight, and may God bless you metmom.)

[Cvengr]

Obviously, the contradictory doctrinal positions do not arise from the Word of God, but from man made traditions added to His Word, convoluting doctrine with false belief.

The Word of God doesn’t require tradition to maintain its integrity.

[metmom]

So is there salvation found outside the RCC or not?

V2 changed that.

How could it not be true for 1900 + years and now it is?

Something cannot both be true and not true.

Does truth change?

That sheds light on the big problem with depending on sola scriptura. The contradictory, conflicting, incompatible, mutually exclusive teachings and beliefs that sola scriptura gives to different Protestants, means that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be right and correct in their beliefs, and that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be wrong and incorrect in their beliefs, and sola scriptura provides no way for either group to determine with certainty which group is right, and God help those who get it wrong through sola scriptura.

That kind of reasoning can be used against Catholicism as well.

What about the EO who Catholics claim are Catholic?

Their beliefs differ significantly from the RCC.

How can there be two truths?

These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:

The Holy Spirit (the filioque)

In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.

In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.

Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of

EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.

RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.

Pope - Authority of

EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.

RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).

Pope - Infallibility of

EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.

RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.

Purgatory

EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.

I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.

http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html

Clearly Catholicism is by no means exempt from the what Catholics consider the inherent weakness of sola Scriptura that they seem to think disqualifies it.

And areas of dispute are recognized in Scripture by God.

Show us anywhere where God demands lockstep adherence to formal doctrinal statements to become a Christian.

[Elsie]

Elsie in post 530: "Now that it has; will you answer Yes or No?"

Yes or no was all I asked for; the political, "I'm glad you asked that question!" is not needed.

[Elsie]

Yup!

I am prolific.

Your turn now.

[Elsie]

(And this thread is way too long already, so I'm going to find a more inspiring thread to peruse.)

Bye...

[Elsie]

I thought you left already!?!

Typical catholic: say one thing and do another!

[Elsie]

Some... one of the best words ever invented!

[paladinan]

Very pleased to see you have returned to post again on this thread.

Er... some of us DO have jobs, you know. My access to FR is a bit spotty, especially on weekends.

If I comprehend correctly your hint above, two things stand out: 1. You are used to controlling the conversation by giving personal edicts regarding the rules that apply. 2. You've never had a meaningful conversation with a true Navajo.

(!) Wow. As gently as I can, let me try a reply:

1) You do not comprehend my "hint" correctly. I meant that comment to be taken at face-value, and as a logical fact. Rhetorical questions do not have any logical weight, and they're used as *substitutes* for logic (and often used to sway audience members emotionally), and if anyone wants to pursue actual truth (as opposed to merely scoring rhetorical points), he or she would be well advised to replace them with actual declarative statements.

2) Your comment #1 is both self-serving and ironic (in that you give the appearance of trying do the very thing you seek to decry in me--i.e. rebuking me for "trying to control the conversation"; by telling me not to do that, is that not an attempt to control the conversation?); I'd also add that it's akin to what the board sometimes calls "mind-reading"... though non-Catholics on this board don't seem to be called on the carpet for that, very often.

3) Whyever would your bloodline be in any way relevant? Would it be at all meaningful to you if I were to suggest that you've never had a meaningful conversation with an Irish Roman Catholic of Jewish heritage? I don't mean to dismiss any personal pride you have in your heritage; I'm just not certain of its relevance. Can you unpack that, a bit?

Re: "sola Scriptura", part of my frustration has been the plethora of "shades" of definition of the term itself. Some on the board feel that the 66-book Protestant Bible *alone* contains all that is necessary for Salvation, and that no authoritative interpreter (aside from personal view, ostensibly "guided by the Holy Spirit") is needed. Others are more cagey about what the term means. I would suggest that the complete (73-book) Bible *does* contain (materially speaking) all necessary spiritual truth (which is Catholic teaching, by the way), but that it is not FORMALLY sufficient for that task (i.e. "unlocking" and interpreting and applying that content cannot be done with "the Bible alone"), especially since it never claims to be. There's more on that topic, certainly... but at this point, I want to be sure that you (and/or others) are open to LISTENING to anything further, before I make the effort to lay it out. There's not much point in trying to explain something if it's only going to be the equivalent of "shouted down" (I think of the Sanhedrin screaming and stopping their ears, as they rushed upon St. Stephen to kill him).

As for the word "alone", yes there is more to it that the Holy Bible "alone". The leading (non-revocable indwelling) of God Himself is necessary to unlock and reveal the Truth to each individual believer, namely in Who Jesus of Nazareth actually is and in everything else that flows from that Fountain of Truth.

I don't disagree with that, in general; but I gently suggest that you have no sure way of knowing whether that "leading of the individual believer" has actually been SUCCESSFUL, apart from mere personal feelings and opinion. There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

I've found at least three responses to "sola Scriptura" adherents, re: the fragmentation of non-Catholic Christianity:

1) "The differences don't matter; we all agree on essentials!" (This is patently false, since issues which THEY claim are matters of salvation or damnation are among the issues on which they disagree vehemently; Seventh Day Adventists believe that you and I are in the road to hell for worshipping on Sunday, rather than on Saturday [the Sabbath], since they think we violate the commandment to "keep holy the Sabbath"; Unitarian Pentecostalists believe that we are not saved unless we speak in tongues, since tongues are [to them] the sign of the "saving indwelling of the holyghost (sic)"; Lutherans believe that salvation is not possible without water Baptism--which I suspect you don't believe... and the list goes on.) It becomes rather difficult to take seriously the idea that "we all believe the same essentials", when one group of Non-Catholic Christians (NCC's) is actively calling another NCC group "damned". Do you see my problem, there?

2) "We're all saved, regardless of even our severe differences, since only [insert favorite single requirement for salvation, here--and there are many contrary ones] saves us, and we all do that!" This has the same problems as (1), and more.

3) "You have the same problems, since no individual Catholic can be sure he understands Church teaching sufficiently!" This is called the "tu quoque" fallacy ("you do it, too, so it must be okay for me!"), and even if it were accurate (it's not), it wouldn't help their case.

As I read what you post, it seems that you rely foremost on your learning about Lord Jesus Christ whereas some other non-RCC Christians here on FR rely most on their one-to-one relationship with Him.

If you assumed that, then you'd be incorrect. My knowledge and confidence in God comes from first-hand experience with Him (akin to yours, I gather); it's only when I'm called upon to DISCUSS and/or PROVE some aspect of the Faith that I resort to theology and logic... since I can't guarantee that anyone else will even *believe*, much less agree with and be convinced by, my personal experiences with Our Lord. And I wouldn't expect them to be; I can honor and respect the "personal experiences" of a sincere Hindu or Muslim, but I do not thereby think that their conclusions are correct.

This really is a big difference in how we approach this subject of rightly discerning Scripture and will affect how and where a believer will want to worship God and be in fellowship with other Christians of like minds.

It is... though again, be aware that my own personal relationship with God does not rest primarily, or even very much, on logic (though God is the God of Sacred Order, and all valid logic points to Him), any more than my relationship with my beloved wife rests on some abstract "proof" of her existence; in both cases, I know and love them from personal encounters/experience.

It transcends logic and has to be experienced to be known.

Yes, that's true... but when two people (such as we) try to have a DISCUSSION about theology (i.e. the study of God, and Who He Is, what He wants, what He's done, etc.), and when those two people come to the discussion table with fundamentally different starting assumptions, it's not feasible (and usually very unwise) to rely on sentiments and emotions--since there's really nothing to discuss, there. At best, it'd be an exchange of emotional experiences to which the other won't be able to relate sufficiently; at worst, it can devolve into a quarrel, or even an outright war. Truth is not found by such means, I think.

Little children, who He never turns away, and those without Paul's great learning can know Him by sincerely coming to Him in faith.

Right; I don't disagree with that, at all. But words MEAN things; and especially in cases where people have SOME heritage in common (e.g. Catholic Christians and Non-Catholic Christians), two groups of people can use the same words to mean rather different things... which gets confusing (and can cause all sorts of mischief, if the participants don't compensate for it). Case in point: to a Pentecostal, "faith" may be inseparable from speaking in tongues, enacting "signs and wonders", and the like; to an Evangelical, "faith" can sometimes be inseparable from a loathing of any reliance on good works when speaking about salvation; to a Catholic, true "faith" is inseparable from growth in virtue and holiness (which implies good works, done out of a love of God and neighbor, done steadily enough to become habit (i.e. "virtue") and to root out vice (i.e. morally bad habits). So when someone offers the word "faith" in a discussion, and expects its meaning and implications to be self-evident, he'll probably be unpleasantly surprised.

[metmom]

There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

That has been refuted numerous times.

Nor does the existence of numerous denominations mean that they by default, think that everyone else is wrong.

Some of what is considered denominations simply focus on different ministries. Like the Salvation Army, Navigators, Wycliff Bible Translators, simply some local congregations who wish to govern themselves.

Differences in governance or focus and ministry outreach, does not automatically translate into doctrinal differences.

Nor does it mean that they are not saved. There are Pentecostals who practice the gifts and Baptists who don't. Big deal.

Nowhere in Scripture does God ever demand lockstep adherence to the same teachings of the Bible.

The fact that some come to different interpretations on some verses does not disqualify the concept that Scripture contains all we need to know to attain salvation and to grow and mature in Christ. It's not a problem with the Scripture, nor the doctrine.

Sometimes the reason is simply that not everyone is as mature in Christ as others.

God allows for that in what the Holy Spirit refers to as *disputable matters* in Romans 14.

Scripture is inherently authoritative by virtue of the fact that it is the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God. It is all we need to grow in the knowledge of Him, as Scripture itself states.

Every criticism against sola Scriptura can be used against the CCC and the RCC magisterium.

Catholics do not all agree on every aspect of Catholicism, and yet they continue to claim they have a superior system by adding tradition and human leadership to the mix.

If Scripture isn't adequate, being from the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infallible, eternal, God Himself, then nothing fallible, mortal, sinful, blinded man adds to it is going to improve it in any way.

[Resettozero]

Thank you for laying out a point-by-point rebuttal of my post to you. I thought you had been r-u-n-n-o-f-t and am pleased you weren’t.

The only response I can make is I hope you are aware of the devices you use when lecturing and that they are not all necessarily honest methods of persuasion. Proven techniques of putting down someone who is in disagreement do not truthful and frank discussions make; just discussions.

Another way of stating this is...I’m unconvinced you are convinced of the veracity of all you are posting. But you have been excellent at presenting yourself as one who does.

Tell-tale signs. Little ones. Controlling ones. Prayer should reveal these to you. You’ll know.

I hope you are not too heavily invested in Roman Catholicism to see the Truth of this matter. Are you?

BTW, I was wrong to think you would understand my Navajo reference. There’s more Cherokee in me than any other native American.

[paladinan]

So is there salvation found outside the RCC or not? V2 changed that.

No, it did not.

How could it not be true for 1900 + years and now it is?

It always was true, and it is true, and it always will be true. (BTW: just to be picky, it's quite possible fr, say, the statement "There's a green rock on top of that mountain!" to be true for 1900 years, and then be "not true"... say, if someone removed the green rock. Just saying. Not germane to the point, but a caution abotu being logically precise, especially when trying to tear down someone else's position.)

Something cannot both be true and not true.

That's correct.

Does truth change?

Absolute, intrinsic truth never changes, no. Relative and/or extrinsic truths can and do change, as noted above. The truth about "extra ecclesia nulla salus" is irreformable truth, revealed by God, and it cannot change.

[paladinan]
That sheds light on the big problem with depending on sola scriptura. The contradictory, conflicting, incompatible, mutually exclusive teachings and beliefs that sola scriptura gives to different Protestants, means that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be right and correct in their beliefs, and that some Protestants using sola scriptura will be wrong and incorrect in their beliefs, and sola scriptura provides no way for either group to determine with certainty which group is right, and God help those who get it wrong through sola scriptura.

[metmom]
That kind of reasoning can be used against Catholicism as well.

We'll see. But even if that were true: how does pointing out the leaks in your neighbor's boat stop your own leaky boat from sinking? If it's a problem with sola Scriptura, then it's a problem with sola Scriptura, no matter what happens to Catholicism. So... how do you patch your own boat, in this instance (i.e. explain how thousands of "sola Scriptura" groups and individuals arrive at contradictory conclusions using "Scripture alone" and "the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit"?

What about the EO who Catholics claim are Catholic?

Yes, and no. They are (at present) still currently Catholic in the core sense of the word, yes... though they are in schism from Rome. But since they have split off from Rome (and from each other), they have no reliable way to stay fully tethered to the truths of the Faith... so they have strayed in some respects. (Think of it this way: a heretical Catholic is still Catholic, but he's an excommunicated one. He doesn't cease being Catholic, once he's baptized; he just becomes a "bad" Catholic if he falls into heresy.)

Their beliefs differ significantly from the RCC.

Again: yes, and no... but since the Church never claimed that schismatic Churches are guaranteed to hold to all the truths of the Faith (how could they, since the infallibility of the Church rests upon being in union with St. Peter and his successors?), this really won't help your case.

How can there be two truths?

That's too vague a comment for me to answer.

These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split.

The split was almost completely political and policy-based (with bad things done by both sides), with disagreements about the "Filioque" part of the Creed being usually a mere pretext. More on that, below.

The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues: The Holy Spirit (the filioque) In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.

That is not an accurate description of the EO position. The EO insist that, when the Holy Spirit proceeds/spirates from the Father, only the Father is the "first principle", the source of the whole Trinity... and Catholics believe that, as well. Some EO's are under the mistaken impression that Rome, in its "filioque", is making the Son a co-principal in the Trinity, and is "demoting" the Father thereby... and that is not true. The EO position has a very different emphasis which rankles Catholic sensibilities, yes... but it is not technically heretical, since it rejects no key part of Catholoic dogma.

One difficulty with talking about the Eastern Orthodox Churches is that, while they are still Catholic, they are fragmented, and there is no one "final court of appeals" for doctrine... so the individual Churches (which prevent them from being fully "Catholic/Universal", anyway, since many are attached to nationalities... e.g. Russian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, etc.) can fall into heresy, with no recourse for deciding among differing views.

In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.

Are you quoting that from somewhere? Because without any other context, that doesn't make a great deal of sense; even if someone were to hold what you mistakenly attribute to the Orthodox Churches, they would not need to believe that any Person of the Blessed Trinity was "separated" from the others (which is absolutely impossible).

Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of: EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.

Again: you're reading a Protestant bias into the idea, which isn't there. OC's believe that Mary was sinless from the very moment of her conception (that's only the Ukranian Church's wording, but the other OC's are inunison with it), which is what Protestants reject... so your case isn't helped here, at all. The Orthodox have a different understanding of HOW and WHY that is the case... but on the specific point that Mary is sinless (they call her "panagia" = "all-holy"), and that she was ALWAYS sinless, the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are in complete agreement.

Re: papal primacy and infallibility, yes: the Orthodox Churches have erred, and they have erred in a matter which has been solemnly defined. But since they are not in union with Peter, I don't see how that helps your case (which seems to be an attempt to prove that Catholicism is divided in doctrine, which is not true; I'm afraid you'll have to stick to "Catholics in union with Rome" to try that.).

Purgatory: EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

Yes, and no. The EO believe that it is possible for SOME punishment due to sin to be purified after death, but they do not allow that ALL such punishment may be thus.

Clearly Catholicism is by no means exempt from the what Catholics consider the inherent weakness of sola Scriptura that they seem to think disqualifies it.

I'm not sure how you could make that claim... since the EO's, while "Catholic" in being closely united enough to the Church to be called actual "Churches" (all 7 of their Sacraments are valid, for example, and their priests/bishops are validly ordained), are not in full communion with the Church, and they are not guaranteed infallibility (since a prerequisite for that is union with the Bishop of Rome).

Show us anywhere where God demands lockstep adherence to formal doctrinal statements to become a Christian.

Aside from your dramatic, pejorative wording (e.g. "lockstep adherence"), I'm assuming you'd only be convinced if I "showed" you such a thing in the Protestant BIBLE? Beyond that, your question is baffling; it's certainly a requirement (for those of the age of reason) to believe that Jesus is Savior, that He died for our sins, and that He offers us eternal life... isn't it? Do you believe that this demands a "lockstep adherence to that doctrinal statement"? I think, rather, that truth is truth because it's truth... and it's no more of a tyranny to believe in those truths than it is to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Your own "requirements" for salvation are iron-clad (e.g. you wouldn't admit of non-believers being "saved", right?), but I don't think you'd put your OWN requirements in such dark, foreboding terms, would you? Then why put Catholic requirements in such terms, aside from the fact that you don't like them, you don't agree with them, and you're biased against them?

[Elsie]

...people can use the same words to mean rather different things...

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[Elsie]

...people can use the same words to mean rather different things...

We all know how the Left wants to control the language; constantly shifting word usage to muddy the waters.

[paladinan]

I hope you *will* give me at least some benefit of the doubt, when I don’t reply immediately to one of your posts. (Given that numerous people have written numerous posts to me—I think of Daniel1212, to whom I haven’t even written back once, due to time limitations—I hope you can understand.)

I have to tell you, FRiend... with all due respect, your post reeks of arrogance. You assume, for whatever specious reason, that I’m not sincere... and your only evidence is a mish-mash of mind-reading (seriously: is it only Catholics who are convicted under that particular “law”? Some of you are rather brazen about it, frankly... as in this case), coupled with an emotion-based “feeling” that you—well—”just aren’t convinced that I’m convinced of the veracity of what I’m saying... but I put on an excellent show of looking like one.” (Translated: “I’m not convinced that you’re not a liar, but you’re a very skilled one, if you are.”)

FRiend, I suggest you take the plank out of your own eye, and look again. Stop trying to assume that you can read my mind or heart (you can’t), stop trying assume that I intend to “put anyone down” (I don’t) or “lecture” (what does that really mean, aside from the fact that you dislike my style of writing?), and stop trying to assume that you have some sort of Gnostic insight into how anyone else works (you don’t), if you want to discuss things with me at all.

Tell you what: if you don’t assume that I’m a lying, manipulative, lecturing hypocrite (albeit an “excellently skilled” one), I won’t assume the same about you, and we can agree to take words at face-value. Agreed?

[Elsie]

I thought you had been r-u-n-n-o-f-t and am pleased you weren’t.

I'm the only one that remains unaffiliated.