Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[StThomasMore]

The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church is NOT infallible and neither were the ecumenical councils.

then neither would the NT canon then

And your opinion holds how much authority?

The Church is the interpreter of scripture because the Church is led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is what makes the Church infallible, since it has the divine guarantee from Christ, who promised the gates of hell would not prevail and would be with till the end of time.

That doesn't mean the Church is impeccable. When people see the word infallible regarding the Church, they misleadingly think impeccable and that Popes somehow never make mistakes or errors.

The ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit.

According to the Barrett study there are 781 EO denominations and 242 Catholic denominations.

the "denominations" of the Catholic Church are simply the differing Rites and Liturgical traditions. Byzantium, Maronite, Oriental, Syriac, Alexandrian, etc. They are all in communion with the See of Rome. The Catholic Church holds a large amount of liturgical traditions that certain cultures and areas prefer over the Latin Rite. The Church grants them this autonomy. But they all agree doctrinally as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, governed by the Rock of Peter.

No Church gave us the Bible...Rome did everything in its power to keep the Scriptures out of the hands of the common people and tried to prevent it from being translated into other languages besides Latin .... the translators of the Bible were burned at the stake

Is that why the Church had already over 20 different translations of the bible during the time of Luther? English copies and reading of scripture go way farther back than what you suggested. The first English copy of scripture for the laity dates back to the 8th century. If you studied some non-biased sources you will find that it wasn't the translations, but rather the anti-catholic commentaries and prefaces they littered their books with. And the reason why many people did not have bibles was not because the Church tried to keep it away from them, but because no one could afford a bible, which was worth 3 years wages, and many people could not even read.

Catholics never outlawed the reading of the bible. They outlawed certain editions of the bible that were translated incorrectly by reformers. Versions where the word "Only" was added to the word Faith in Rom 3:28. That one word changes the whole entire meaning of the doctrine of the bible. We are not supposed to add to the word of God. The church is the bibles guardian and the guardian of all truth because the Catholic church is the Pillar and foundation of all truth(1 Tim 3:15). The Catholic church is the biggest promoter of scripture and always has been. We wrote it(at least the new testament), copied it, passed it on, and canonized it in 382 At the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I. If it was not for the Catholic Church and her popes and traditions the world would never of even known what the bible was. Protestants only know the bible because of us. Martin Luther admitted that. St Augustine also did in the 4th century. fundamentalist always spread rumors about us keeping the scriptures away from people. Bugt htose are just lies.

In fact St. Thomas More himself stated that the Church had already translated the bible into English even before Wycliff. He states:

"The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read.” - - Dialogues III"

Before the printing press, Catholic monks had been copying Scriptures by hand from the earliest manuscripts down through the centuries We must remember that if they had not preserved God’s word neither Catholics or Protestants would have the Scriptures today. Not only is it said that the Catholic Church did not have Scriptures available in the common languages, the Church is also accused of keeping the Bible away from the people, even going so far as chaining Bibles in the Church! Remember that before printing had been invented the Bible was hand-copied and therefore copies were both rare and expensive. Chaining the Bible to the Church would keep it from being taken away and therefore making it more available to those who were able to read. One can compare this with telephone books that are chained up at public telephone booths today – not to keep people from using them but keeping them available for all.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

then neither would the NT canon then

Moot. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines disputed among us. The reality that there is NO denomination on the planet that has the same canon as the RCC does (since Trent anyway) while an interesting subject for another day and thread is moot here. The Rule of Law is the same PRAXIS in California as in Nevada - even if the laws are not identical. And as you point out, when it comes to the NT, the RC is finally in align with all others.

The Church is the interpreter of scripture because the Church is led by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, since this is a unique claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter - is also exempt from accountability and the issue of truth. If someone comes here and says, "The Holy Spirit ONLY leads ME (inerrantly) and I'M the ONLY one who follows (infallibly), ergo truth is moot for me!" You will (if true to Catholicism) rebuke and ridicule and mock such a claim of self for self and then turn around an passionately defend the exact thing you just ridiculed.

it has the divine guarantee from Christ, who promised the gates of hell would not prevail and would be with till the end of time.

.... a little reality check: Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination. Not once. Not for anything. He never promised it anything, He never authorized it for anything, He never exempted it from anything, He never even MENTIONED it totally in passing for nothing at all. He mentioned it EXACTLY the same number of times as He mentioned the LDS (the claims of such alone for self alone notwithstanding) - I know this and I'm rather confident you do, too. The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that. Don't drag Jesus into it.

The ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit.

NONE of the unique, distinctive RCC doctrines (the teachings that make the RCC the RCC) were NEVER endorsed by ANY ecumenical council. They were'nt even DISCUSSED by ANY ecumenical council. The claims and teachings of the RCC are simply those of the RCC, don't drag ecumenical counsels into it.


Let's see if we can return to the issue: Truth, accountability, norming - and the most sound rule in norming. http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ Sola Scriptura.






.

 

[StThomasMore]

I didn't say it was Protestant, did I? The Protestants weren't around until the 16th century at the start of the Protestant Reformation.

The Body of Christ/the Church has NEVER been without the Scriptures. The Old Testament certainly was around at that time...it was around when Jesus walked this earth, for He quoted from it. The New Testament canon was completed during the first century.

ummm. Have you ever read a book on christian history? because even protestant scholars know that the NT wasn't fully compiled until the 4th century. Most notably in the council of Carthage and Hippo. There were many extra books that christians were reading that didn't make it into the canon, like the Didache, Shepard of Hermes, and the Apocalypse of Peter. The book of John's Revelation was disputed greatly during the early church also.

You need to study Church history before making extremely incorrect statements like that. Also the OT that many of the christians and apostles had during that time was the LXX. Which has those 6 extra books you don't have.

 

[StThomasMore]

Moot. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines disputed among us. The reality that there is NO denomination on the planet that has the same canon as the RCC does (since Trent anyway) while an interesting subject for another day and thread is moot here. The Rule of Law is the same PRAXIS in California as in Nevada - even if the laws are not identical. And as you point out, when it comes to the NT, the RC is finally in align with all others.

so where does it say in scripture which books are to be contained in scripture??

Of course, since this is a unique claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter - is also exempt from accountability and the issue of truth. If someone comes here and says, "The Holy Spirit ONLY leads ME (inerrantly) and I'M the ONLY one who follows (infallibly), ergo truth is moot for me!" You will (if true to Catholicism) rebuke and ridicule and mock such a claim of self for self and then turn around an passionately defend the exact thing you just ridiculed.

Yea people like Marcion and Valentanius themselves claimed they were being led by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit doesn't lead heretics. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church as a whole. The communion of saints.

Exempt from truth? It is truth. It is led by the Holy Spirit and cannot err with regards to doctrinal teachings. This is shown greatly during all the heresies that were floating around during the early church, and many of which were Arians. The arians outnumbered the Catholics, and yet they were still able to define Christ's hypostatic union amidst so much errors and heretical bishops. That is a sign of divine guidance, as the Church was unwavered in its orthodoxy amid all the heresies during its time.

.... a little reality check: Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination. Not once. Not for anything. He never promised it anything, He never authorized it for anything, He never exempted it from anything, He never even MENTIONED it totally in passing for nothing at all. He mentioned it EXACTLY the same number of times as He mentioned the LDS (the claims of such alone for self alone notwithstanding) - I know this and I'm rather confident you do, too. The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that. Don't drag Jesus into it.

I'm sorry but you are sorrily wrong. As the promise lies in the Keys that were given to Peter. The gates of hell will not prevail. The Catholic Church clings to the rock of Peter as its earthly shepard and vicar, because of its promises Christ gave to Peter and the Keys that were bestowed upon him for binding and loosing. Unlike other groups, we actually trust in these keys and promises Christ gave to Peter and we truly believe in his words that hell will not prevail. This is why Catholics so defend the authority and primacy of the Roman Pontiff. They believe in those promises.

NONE of the unique, distinctive RCC doctrines (the teachings that make the RCC the RCC) were NEVER endorsed by ANY ecumenical council. They were'nt even DISCUSSED by ANY ecumenical council. The claims and teachings of the RCC are simply those of the RCC, don't drag ecumenical counsels into it.

Are you kidding me? the ecunemical councils are all part of Catholic doctrines. The primacy of Rome is seen as early as the Council of Nicea. The perpetual Viriginity of Mary. The trinity and Creed. The veneration of icons. Intercession. The council of Ephesus giving the title to Mary as the "Mother of God". The structure of priests, bishops, and deacons.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
The ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit.

-snip-

Not sure what your point is, but keep in mind that Nicea council defined filioque as EO believes, rather than the revision a few hundred years later that RC believes.

So, to what work and what council do you speak? Trent? Vat II?

 

[Standing Up]

-snip- people like Marcion and Valentanius themselves claimed they were being led by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit doesn't lead heretics. The Holy Spirit was given to the Church as a whole. The communion of saints. -snip-

Thank God for Polycarp, eh? Marcion practically ruled Rome IIRC.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


Are you kidding me? the ecunemical councils are all part of Catholic doctrines. The primacy of Rome is seen as early as the Council of Nicea. The perpetual Viriginity of Mary. The trinity and Creed. The veneration of icons. Intercession. The council of Ephesus giving the title to Mary as the "Mother of God". The structure of priests, bishops, and deacons.

Where and in what sense is it shown there?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Moot. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines disputed among us. The reality that there is NO denomination on the planet that has the same canon as the RCC does (since Trent anyway) while an interesting subject for another day and thread is moot here. The Rule of Law is the same PRAXIS in California as in Nevada - even if the laws are not identical. And as you point out, when it comes to the NT, the RC is finally in align with all others.

.

so where does it say in scripture which books are to be contained in scripture??

Read what you quoted.

It doesn't. Where does Sola Scriptura teach that?

Why is the reality that the RCC has a UNIQUE canon (since Trent anyway), one that NONE on the planet agrees with mean that the RCC is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from the issue of Truth or that it has a rule MORE infallible, MORE inspired, MORE inerrant, MORE objectively known to all and alterable by none, MORE historically and ecumenically embraced than is Scripture?

Of course, since this is a unique claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - self designating self as the sole, authoritative, unaccountable interpreter - is also exempt from accountability and the issue of truth. If someone comes here and says, "The Holy Spirit ONLY leads ME (inerrantly) and I'M the ONLY one who follows (infallibly), ergo truth is moot for me!" You will (if true to Catholicism) rebuke and ridicule and mock such a claim of self for self and then turn around an passionately defend the exact thing you just ridiculed.


.

Yea people like Marcion and Valentanius themselves claimed they were being led by the Holy Spirit.

... actually, the only denomination I know of that claims that the Holy Spirit inerrantly ONLY leads SELF and that the only one that infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is SELF is the RCC (see the Catechism of itself # 87 for starters). The early LDS did the same but does no longer, the RCC stands quite alone in it's insistence for itself.

If self alone claiming that self alone is inerrantly lead by the Holy Spirit and that self alone infallibly follows the Holy Spirit is to be ridiculed and is something heretics do, then I remind you - the only denomination that does that is..... yours.

.... a little reality check: Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED your denomination. Not once. Not for anything. He never promised it anything, He never authorized it for anything, He never exempted it from anything, He never even MENTIONED it totally in passing for nothing at all. He mentioned it EXACTLY the same number of times as He mentioned the LDS (the claims of such alone for self alone notwithstanding) - I know this and I'm rather confident you do, too. The remarkable, accountability-evading claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone are just that. Don't drag Jesus into it.

As the promise lies in the Keys that were given to Peter.

Good you clearly agree with me. Read what you quoted...


Whatever Jesus may have promised to Peter (and you have quoted no promises), that's to Peter - not to the RCC or LDS.

As you seem to agree, Jesus never so much as even MENTIONED the RCC or LDS (both claims of each for self notwithstanding). He never authorized them for anything, He never promised them anything, He never exempted them from anything, He never even so much as just MENTIONED either of them totally in passing for nothing at all. The remarkable, egotistical, accountability-evading claims of each alone for self alone are just that. Don't drag Jesus into this, He never said ANYTHING about your denomination.

NONE of the unique, distinctive RCC doctrines (the teachings that make the RCC the RCC) were NEVER endorsed by ANY ecumenical council. They were'nt even DISCUSSED by ANY ecumenical council. The claims and teachings of the RCC are simply those of the RCC, don't drag ecumenical counsels into it.


.

he ecunemical councils are all part of Catholic doctrines.

Nope.

NONE of the distinctive RCC dogmas (N.O.N.E.) where even DISCUSSED at any Ecumenical Councils - much less taught. The Inerrancy of the Bishop in Rome, Transubstantiation, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, etc - the very teachings that make the RCC the RCC - DOGMAS - none of them were embraced or taught or even discussed at any Ecumenical Council. Don''t drag them into this!



You are doing an excellent job at confirming the last point in the post about the Rule of Scripture. http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ Read the last point, "why do some so passionately reject the Rule of Scripture in norming?"








.

 

[Montalban]

Moot. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule in evaluating doctrines disputed among us. .

You've still not shown that this approach is based in Scripture

 

[laconicstudent]

I like how this thread has gone "Bash-the-Roman-Catholic-Church" again. How typical.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You've still not shown that this approach is based in Scripture

http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/


1. A practice need not be exampled in Scripture to be sound.

2. Actually, this one is. In fact, from when Scripture first appeared around 1400 BC or so. When Moses came down the mountain, the Scirptures were veiwed normatively. He did not say, "The Rule for morality is the infallible Pope of Rome" or "If one claims that self is unaccountable, that one is."

I can't list all the examples, but I will share just a small, partial list from just the NT, examples of Scripture being embraced normatively:


Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46


John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
john 20:31
John 21:25

Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 8:24
Acts 18:28
Acts 1:29
Acts 7:42
Acts 13:29
Acts 13:33
Acts 15:15
Acts 23:5
Acts 24:14
Acts 13:46

Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 26:26
Romans 1:17
Romans 2:24
Romans 3:4
Romans 3:10
Romans 4:17
Romans 4:23
Romans 8:36
Romans 9:13
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:8
Romans 11:26
Romans 12:19
Romans 14:11
Romans 15:3
Romans 15:9
Romans 15:21

1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
1 Cor. 1:19
1 Cor 1:31
1 Cor. 2:9
1 Cor. 3:19
1 Cor. 4:6
1 Cor. 9:9
1 Cor. 9;10
1 Cor. 10:7
1 Cor. 10:10
1 Cor. 14:22
1 Cor. 15:45
1 Cor. 15: 54

2 Cor. 4:13
2 Cor. 8:15
2 Cor. 9:9

Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
Gal. 3:10
Gal. 3:13
Gal. 4:22
Gal. 4:27

1 Tim 5:18

2 Tim 3:16

James 2:8
James 2:23
James 4:5

1 Peter 2:6
1 Peter 1:16

2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16

Understand, this is just a short, PARTIAL list of some examples JUST from the New Testament. I regard such examples as moot (praxis need not be exampled in Scripture to be sound) but since you think praxis must be exampled - I share just this short list. Now, you might want to compare that to the number of Scriptures that example the RCC denomination being used normatively or where it is exampled that if a teacher alone claims that self alone is unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth, ergo that one is.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Montalban]

The problem with that lengthy list is I've addressed it.

And you've not said where my addressing of it is flawed. You've simply resorted to re-posting it again.

I'm happy to go over my point again.

The very first verse refers to people using scripture.

No one on my side has said "Don't use scripture"

However there's a major difference between two positions
a) use scripture to find the truth
and
b) only use scripture to find the truth

You evidence a) to prove b)

And it doesn't work

 

[Montalban]

I like how this thread has gone "Bash-the-Roman-Catholic-Church" again. How typical.

It actually, in a sense lends some credence to the RCC that it has all this knee-jerk reaction against it.

Even some evil groups use the Catholic Mass, said in Latin, and backwards - so they're still giving some credence to the RCC by defining it as the Other.

 

[laconicstudent]

It actually, in a sense lends some credence to the RCC that it has all this knee-jerk reaction against it.

Even some evil groups use the Catholic Mass, said in Latin, and backwards - so they're still giving some credence to the RCC by defining it as the Other.

Oh, I agree. In the usual anti-Catholic hysteria in this subforum, all they are doing is making the RCC look persecuted, which just makes a contrast between them and comfortable easy-lite Christianity.

 

[Thekla]

It actually, in a sense lends some credence to the RCC that it has all this knee-jerk reaction against it.

Even some evil groups use the Catholic Mass, said in Latin, and backwards - so they're still giving some credence to the RCC by defining it as the Other.

A parallel notion:
" ... atheism has too much to do with God." - Marcel Duchamp

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

refers to people using scripture.

... normatively. And what is using Scripture normatively called? Yup, Sola Scriptura.

However there's a major difference between two positions
a) use scripture to find the truth
and
b) only use scripture to find the truth

I invite you to read the following: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I think you have a mistaken idea of the practice, if you read this post I am very confident it will be VERY helpful to you! Read the definition. Read what it is and what it is not.


Now, if you want to derail this into a issue of "how to find RELIGIOUS truth," I personally would mention MANY things - including prayer, worship, Sacraments, and yes - Bible study. But the issue here is not "finding religious truth" is it? The issue is your denomination does not teach Purgatory and the RCC says it is a de fide dogma taught by the Apostles and ever since: you can't both be right. Yes - your denomination agrees with your denomination, and yes - the RCC agrees with the RCC. But THAT didn't help much, did it? And yes - BOTH of your denominations have valid Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition and were founded by Jesus - even the other admits that, but that didn't help much, did it? Does it MATTER if purgatory is de fide dogma or not? Is the EO or the RC or both accountable in this regard? WHAT is the most sound Rule for this norming? Or should we just all throw up our hands and say, "when it comes to Christian dogmas - truth doesn't matter" or "If one says they are exempted from the issue of truth then that one is?"






.

 

[Montalban]

Oh, I agree. In the usual anti-Catholic hysteria in this subforum, all they are doing is making the RCC look persecuted, which just makes a contrast between them and comfortable easy-lite Christianity.

It's amazing what irrational argument can do!

In '86 when I considered myself a lapsed Catholic, and more than a decade before I discovered His church I was in a discussion with some Protestants who were ranting on so much about the RCC that I ended up defending it and re-converting to a practicing Catholic!

(by the way that's NINETEEN 86)

Lew Wallace who wrote Ben Hur, was an atheist who was convereted to Christianity whilst on a train listening to anti-Christian rants.

 

[Montalban]

... normatively. And what is using Scripture normatively called? Yup, Sola Scriptura..

I take it you have nothing to add except urging people to keep re-reading your norma normans spiel

If you can show me from Scripture that Scipture is the only METHOD, please do so.

That the RCC make one claim and we make another regarding Purgatory is a totally different argument.

You call youself CaliforniaJosiah. If I call myself CaliforniaJosiah that I do doesn't suddenly negate that you are CaliforniaJosiah.

Certainly we both can't be the real CaliforniaJosiah. But that's a different argument from the very fact that one of us can be.

What you're attempting to do is rather than look at whether scripture and tradition is the right approach you reject it out-of-hand because of two competing claims derived from that approach.

I might as well apply the same rule to scripture alone and point out the 100,000's of divided Protestant churches.

But applying your spurrious reasoning is not what I'm here for.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you can show me from Scripture that Scipture is the only METHOD, please do so.

Where did I ever even mention "method." What I said is that employing the Rule of Scripture in the norming of the disputed doctrines among us is the practice of Sola Scriptura.

I gave you MANY examples of Scripture being used normatively. Not that such is needed IMO, but you seem to think it is - you seem to be of the view that praxis is only valid if it has more than 80 examples of it recorded in Scripture. Understood. But you have yet to supply even ONE example of anything else ever being used normatively. If EXAMPLES in Scripture are the critical factor, then give more than 80 for some other norma normans being employed in the evaluation of the correctness/validity/truthfulness of doctrines.






.

 

[Montalban]

Where did I ever even mention "method." What I said is that employing the Rule of Scripture in the norming of the disputed doctrines among us is the practice of Sola Scriptura.

Using scripture alone or otherwise is a method of deriving the truth.

I gave you MANY examples of Scripture being used normatively.

And you've been given examples from scripture where scripture alone is not normative.