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”?
If you're going to make an assertion, you need to be prepared to substantiate it:
"It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]" Wiki
And if you're not a fan of Wikipedia, I can find you a whole lot of other sources saying pretty much the same thing.
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?
It's the meaning that is conveyed that is under discussion. The Holy Spirit inspired the words of John 1:42 as well. Some are contending that the use of "petros" in Matt. 16:18 means "upon this rock" isn't referring to Peter. Taking Scripture as a whole, that Jesus in John 1:42 says that Simon will be called "Cephas" (rock) is a good cross-reference to know that "this rock" does refer to Peter.
No, the problem is that Catholics won't listen to what Prots tell them sola means.
RC's keep fabricating what they wish it meant so they can shoot non-Catholics down with it, but strawmen are strawmen and while it may make RC's feel good, they are accomplishing nothing other than demonstrating to the world that they will not listen to others.
OK. I've listened, and I don't make the claim that "sola scriptura" means there can be no source of truth or information other than the Scriptures.
But my point remains (you skipped right over it) that the inconsistent use of "sola" by Protestants no doubt contributes to the "strawman" problem. In at least one instance (sola fide) it's used in an exclusive sense; then when the topic jumps to Scripture it's used in a different sense.
So, yeah, if you want your explanations to be clear, it would help to acknowledge this distinction. I'm not even sure most Protestants trying to explain S.S. are even cognizant of the inconsistency.
Quote-Likewise, not all Protestants are Biblical scholars, so many choose to delegate those things to others, making a conscious decision to trust their judgement.
And that was a trap I fell into when I believed Rome’s gospel, according to Rome, of Good Friday and Easter Sunday, instead of Paul’s teaching and gospel of Passover and First Fruits..
Really is another gospel.. and it was unnerving how I was following a ‘template’ of truth (aka counterfeit) instead of Genuine Truth..
And I am not sure protestant biblical scholars would see the subtle changes Rome has made.. the world runs on a roman calendar so things like good Friday and easter Sunday are ingrained christian traditions that would seem normal to even biblical scholars or Protestants who follow sola scriptura..
Sola scriptura except when it comes to Passover and First Fruits..
They trust Rome and her judgememt and her holy substitutes of good Friday and easter Sunday..
And there is a difference.. one is according to ‘Scriptura’ and the other, according to Rome..
And neither do non-Catholics.
That's just a tired, over used canard that CATHOLICS keep repeating claiming that that's what *Prots* believe about sola.
Methinks you're listening to the wrong people.
Here. Posted before and several of us non-Catholics have agreed with it.
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.
And if a Catholic, having been given the explanation, keeps misstating the Protestant view, then I agree that's a strawman argument and disingenuous.
But Protestants start with a term that literally means "scripture only," then put forth a 5-paragraph explanation hat starts out by saying in effect, "OK, 'sola' doesn't mean 'only.'"
I can see why many Catholics might get confused, even if you don't want to acknowledge the inconsistent use of "sola" by Protestants is part of the problem.
Catholics agree in what is called the "material sufficiency of Scripture." Or, as it's sometimes phrased, that the Bible contains all revealed Truth, either explicitly or implicitly. We just disagree that the Scriptures are formally sufficient, in that a) reason and experience demonstrate that the Bible is not self-interpreting, b) the Bible demonstrates there is a church granted teaching authority, and c) the Bible warns about divisions in teaching and understanding.
So the Bible is materially sufficient and formally insufficient.
Based on what? When and where was that decision reached and who decided that and why?
It's not possible to pinpoint a "when and where." The Scriptures had always been taught and passed down through authoritative teachers. Jesus recognized this:
23 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Matt. 23:1-3
"Moses seat" represents the authority to teach the law of Moses. Jesus told His listeners to follow what the scribes and Pharisees instruct, even as He then excoriates them for their hypocrisy.
In the NT era, Jesus commanded the Apostles to "go and teach." And the Apostles went out and taught authoritatively on how the Scriptures (then just the OT) and the Gospel were true. Though the break with Pharisaic tradition had occurred, and the authority to teach now was possessed by the Apostles and their appointees:
"17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." Heb. 13:17
In the post-Apostolic period, the early church writers consistently speak of Scripture being understood by reference to church teaching. Those appointed by the Apostles to succeed them as bishops preserved and passed on the teachings as given to them. Church teaching was often raised to opposed the early heretical sects which arose. This is noted by Oxford church historian J.N.D. Kelly:
" "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was universal or general . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 190–1
At times when serious theological controversies arose, the Church followed the Biblical model (Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem) and held councils to define orthodox teaching. "Letting Scripture settle it" wasn't the answer, as usually it was divergent views of the Scriptures that led to the controversy in the first place.
So the formal insufficiency of Scripture has always been recognized, since at no time do we see Scriptural truth divorced from a sense of a true teaching authority. That only comes with the Protestant Reformation.
Ok.
Koine Greek (/ˈkɔɪniː/ or /ˈkɔɪneɪ/; from κοινός/κοινή "common", also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic or Hellenistic Greek) was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries. [Bubenik, V. (2007). "The rise of Koiné". In A. F. Christidis. A history of Ancient Greek: from the beginnings to late antiquity. Cambridge: University Press. pp. 342–345.]
The mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek ,which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek [Wenham The elements of New Testament Greek -p xxv Jeremy Duff, John William Wenham - 2005] [Daniel B. Wallace Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament 1997]
Greek was the most ideally adapted linguistic medium for the World-Wide communication of the Gospel in the entire region of the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt and the Near East. [Archer, Gleason L. 1975. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 3. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.]
Saying Koine Greek was the common language in "much of the Mediterranean" area stops well short of saying it was the primary language spoken in the region of Nazareth and Galilee. And it certainly doesn't make the claim it was the language spoken by Jesus and the disciples.
If you're going to contend that Jesus primarily spoke Koine Greek to the disciples, you need a credible source saying "Jesus spoke primarily Koine Greek to the disciples." You know, a clear an affirmative statement like this:
"It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]"
A source that says merely it was the primary language in other parts around the Meditteranean and Middle East doesn't get you there.
So, nothing after “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Is valid?
It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]Aramaic was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722–330 BC) and remained a common language of the region in the first century AD. In spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD[3] and would remain so until the Arab conquest in the seventh century.[4][5] Source
Though baptized into the Latin Church, I practice my faith in a Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church whose liturgy originated in Antioch at the time when Peter served as bishop. The words of consecration are in Aramaic, just as they were at that time. Jesus spoke Aramaic.
As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. You should invest some time in learning more about the origins of the Bible. The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist. This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly to the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303). Before translating the Bible into Latin, St. Jerome had already translated into more common languages enough books to fill a library. (Saint Jerome, Maisie Ward, Sheed & Ward; A Companion to Scripture Studies, Steinmuller.)
Really funny
Scripture established the Church.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
What part of "My Church" don't you understand?
Where is that in Scripture?
Now that's what I'd call "that ol' time religion." :)
Man is never to add to God's word.
However, God does not limit Himself on how much He may speak.
So, yes, everything God added after that verse i Deuteronomy IS valid, and no, nothing man added since then is valid. Stuff man adds never is.
Bwahahaha!!!!!
I can see we've been remiss on coming up with that one.
GC, another one for your list.....
Christ’s church. Not the Catholic one.
The terms are not necessarily synonymous, nor interchangeable.
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.