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”?
Promoting the supposition that Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew but there is no documented proof is tantamount to a lack of faith in God’s ability to preserve His word “for all generations” as He promised.
The word *magisterium* doesn't appear in the Bible either, so by their reasoning, that ought to be disqualified as well.
But it has been preserved, after being translated into Greek and Latin, by Catholics.
Prove that he didn't.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!
"Petra" is the word for rock, but it has a feminine ending. Addressing a male to give him a new name (a Biblical custom pointing to a major life-changing event), the word acquires a male ending. But there is no "masculine Greek word Petros" - other than the name, Peter.
The closest I can get to it in English is that if you named a male after a rock, you would name him Rocky, not Rockette.
Say what? You're kidding right? We're not in kindergarten here NYer.
“Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!”
You gave up the narrow gate when you gave up Jesus in the Eucharist.
Never said he was.....thread reader??
Proof you can fool some of the people all the time.
Sal: But it has been preserved, after being translated into Greek and Latin, by Catholics.
So that means that it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH which used the words *petra* and *Petros* in Matthew there.
Making the word for *rock* mean small stone in one case and bedrock in another.
And then it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH which penned this, too, right?
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
Anyway, as to:
Promoting the supposition that Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew but there is no documented proof . .
As to Matt. 16, the point is simply that Aramaic was the common language of the day. (See, e.g., Mark 15:34-36) So when Jesus is speaking to the Apostles that day at Ceaserea Philippi, he's speaking in Aramaic. And clear evidence that Simon was called by the Aramaic "Kepha" is found in John 1:42;
42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a])(NIV).
The footnote to that edition states: "a. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock."
"Cephas" is a transliteration into Greek of the Aramaic "Kepha" (rock).
So the point that in rendering the dialogue into Greek, Matthew had to contend with the noun gender in Greek (thus choosing "petros" (masculine)) doesn't depend on proof of some original Aramaic manuscript to Matthew's Gospel, just on recognition that the words spoken to Peter were originally spoken in Aramaic.
I thought prots answered EVERY question ever asked of them
“On which doctrines do they disagree?”
How about papal infallibility, for a start.
“Refresh my memory which Bible verse says:”
No, you made a claim that something was in the Bible. Thus, it is only sensible that you either produce the Scripture, or retract the claim.
I made no claims that the things you list were in Scripture, therefore your request is not sensible.
The problem in these dialogues is that the word "sola" isn't employed with a consistent meaning by Protestants.
As to Scripture, the usual explanation is that Scripture is the first and highest source of truth; that other sources are not thereby precluded, just that ultimately Scripture is the measure. So here a more accurate shorthand expression would be prima Scriptura. "Sola" here doesn't strictly mean "only" or "exclusive," but more like "principal" or "primary."
But when the discussion turns to soteriology ("sola fide") Protestants are very clear that "sola" does mean "only" or "exclusive," assuring me that "works" have nothing whatsoever to do with our justification.
So if Protestants would use "sola" consistently (which they don't), there might be less confusion on the Catholic side.
And then believe that the Catholic Church which they claim has unbroken lineage of the preservation of scripture lost the originals. And to top that all off believe they could consistently over millennium maintain an unchanging oral teaching. They can save dead bones but not God's original word.
“It still sounds like you get to decide what does or doesn’t contradict Scripture.”
Everyone makes that decision one way or another, Catholics just choose to delegate matters to their church authorities. Still, they have all made the individual decision that the church authorities’ interpretations do not contradict Scripture.
Likewise, not all Protestants are Biblical scholars, so many choose to delegate those things to others, making a conscious decision to trust their judgement. So, I don’t think that the fact that a judgement was made about which interpretation is correct is really the important thing. What is important is that the correct interpretation is arrived at.
Do you really want us to take your comments seriously? The common language beginning already in 300BC was Koine Greek, not Aramaic. What language Jesus was speaking is irrelevant in that the Holy Spirit inspired the New Testament to be written in Greek. Do you honestly think that the Holy Spirit didn't know what words to use to convey His meaning?
Who is this Jimmy you speak of? And why should I care what this “Jimmy” says?
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.