Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I agree. I think that's why at every Mass there is a reading from the Old Testament, also from the Psalms, also from the Epistles, then from the Gospel, so that people are given the chance to see the continuity of Revelation. However there can be various reasons why a person cannot make a systematic study of the Scriptures. One of them is lack of intelligence, another is the depth and complexity of Scripture. As I understand it, for much of Christian history, there was no printing press, Bibles were extremely expensive therefore, and most Christians were illiterate. So they received the Word of God mostly orally and through picture depicting the main events in Christ's life, like the Christians in the N.T.



I think that's true in some sense. However, I think the early Church and the Apostles, etc, interpreted the Bible much more allegorically and mystically than we do. They didn't demand explicit texts the way we do. I've seen many examples of the way they interpret the Bible very allegorically/mystically, though I can't remember many of them right now. They also didn't quote Scripture exactly, if I remember right. I know that one example is in Galatians 4 where Paul interprets Sarah and Hagar as symbols of the New and Old Covenants. Another example is where Christ says it is written in Scripture that "whoever believes, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water". (I think that's in John 7 unless I'm mistaken) Apparently there is no such O.T verse. Christ is apparently referring to Ezekiel who talks about the river of living water that will flow out of the temple, which symbolizes the Body of Christ. When Catholics quote Scripture like this they are derided. But that's how Christ and the Apostles did, appaently.



I think they didn't stand around arguing about the source of Scripture because they knew it was the oral Word. Yes, they took the Bible seriously. But they didn't go by the Bible alone. They went by interpreting the O.T. mystically in light of what they were seeing and hearing from the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ.



I think we disagree on what essentials are. There are many possible Biblical interpretations, which is why I think we need the authority of the historic Church. For example, there is only one list of essentials that I know of in the Bible. It is in Hebrews somewhere. Here it is Hebrews 6:1, Hebrews 6:2. It says that one of the "foundational" doctrines is instructions about laying on of hands. This is listed right along with faith in God and the Resurrection. Now I, as a Catholic, believe it is referring to the Sacrament of the Seal of the Holy Spirit (Confirmation). Others would not agree with that. And very few are even preaching this Biblical word of God (that instructions about laying on of hands is fundamental Christian doctrine).

Good point about the laying on of hands. Hebrews says to lay the laying on of hands aside along with the other elementary things. And to move away from the milk of the word and onto the meat of the word. That explains what I was saying in better detail I think.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Folks call the sin of adultery "having an affair" and the practice of homosexuality is now called an "alternative lifestyle" the names of sin changes to the more glorfied version of whatever thing. Worship of graven images is not quite full blown worship of them (even though praying and kneeling before them (censing them) etc but is venerating them (a lower form of worship (sort, kinda, but not really)

If you worship something, you worship it. If you don't you don't. It's pretty black and white-we worship (latria) God alone, we dulia good human beings, and we hyper-dulia Mary.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So how do you KNOW that what the the church says is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and not said for more insidious purposes?

Because it doesn't contradict Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Fireinfolding]

If you worship something, you worship it. If you don't you don't. It's pretty black and white-we worship (latria) God alone, we dulia good human beings, and we hyper-dulia Mary.

True

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Because it doesn't contradict Scripture or Tradition.

And the inquisition and the crusades did not contradict scripture?

 

[patricius79]

If you worship something, you worship it. If you don't you don't. It's pretty black and white-we worship (latria) God alone, we dulia good human beings, and we hyper-dulia Mary.

I love Mary, the Mother of Jesus, our God.

Some say that we shouldn't call her the Mother of God. But the Bible says that Jesus is God.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Because it doesn't contradict Scripture or Tradition.

Do you realize that even the Rosary is a knock off of Buddhist prayer beads?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I love Mary, the Mother of Jesus, our God.

Some say that we shouldn't call her the Mother of God. But the Bible says that Jesus is God.

God is pre-existant, the humaniss of Jesus was the only begotten of God. Big difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[patricius79]

Good point about the laying on of hands. Hebrews says to lay the laying on of hands aside along with the other elementary things. And to move away from the milk of the word and onto the meat of the word. That explains what I was saying in better detail I think.

Yes but I think we still need some good milk. One of those other elementary things is repentance, faith, and the Resurrection of the dead, and the laying on of hands. So I don't think that he is saying that these are unimportant. He says they are first principles and are fundamental. But the way I'm reading it he wants them to go deeper. Then he goes on to explain how Christ is interceding for them before the Father, and explains the O.T. worship as being prophetic of the New Covenant. He explains that Christ is a Priest forever, and that every priest must have something to offer. I interpret that to mean that he eternally offers His Body and Blood on our behalf, which we must eat and drink. Later in the chapter somewhere it talks about how we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. He also says to submit to the leaders of the Church if I remember right.

 

[Goatee]

You think it's ok to claim that and not provide proof. Not good form.

I couldnt be bothered to go and look. I was just remarking about sly remarks etc. Not such a case as arguing a case. I dont mind that. It is the under handed remarks that are not right. I will have a look and pass them on to a moderator.

 

[patricius79]

God is pre-existant, the humaniss of Jesus was the only begotten of God. Big difference in the grand scheme of things.

Hi Cassia, I agree that God is Eternal. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the humanness of Jesus was the only begotten of God.

When the Catholic Church calls Mary the Mother of God, we are not denying the eternity of God or claiming that Mary is eternal. We know she is a creature. What we are affirming in calling her by this title is that God became man for our salvation. Mothers don't conceive and give birth to natures. They conceive persons. Mary didn't conceive Christ's human nature. She and the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus, who is fully human and God, having two natures and two wills.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The point about the crusades is that the pope said that anyone who gives up their wealth and opsessions and fights against the Muslims will "be completely absolved from all sin" which basically told them that they could do whatever they wanted (kill, rape, ect) and they would have a guaranteed ticket to heaven. If you do not agree with this statement from the pope that proves that the pope has the capability to use his "absolute infallibility " to manipulate the masses for other purposes. So if the pope is capable of doing such a thing how do you absolutely know for sure they didn't do it elsewhere.

So, if they do give up their wealth and possessions, as Jesus told the young man who asked "What must I do...", they're following Christ. Taking back the Holy Land (not just as you mischaracterized it "fighting against the Muslims") was the objective. The Pope did not give them the permission to "do whatever they wanted (kill (though that's what war is...), rape, ect). Holy War involved doing good deeds and penance to get to heaven.
But you misunderstand, totally (not surprising) what infallibility is, and since I've explained it elsewhere, you can go look for it.

With the inquisition, the pope basically gave the OK to execute anyone who did not convert to Catholicism which in my opinion no different than what Muslim jihadists have been doing. Once again. If you do not agree with this decision from the church that proves that the pope has the capability to use his "absolute infallibility " to manipulate the masses for other purposes. So if the pope is capable of doing such a thing how do you absolutely know for sure they didn't do it elsewhere.

No, the Pope did not "basically gave the OK to execute anyone who did not convert to Catholicism". He allowed there to be a tribunal court which tested the truth of someone's conversion. In fact, the Church rarely killed anyone in any of the inquisitions. By the way, the rulers of those places usually thought it a matter of good order and discipline that all their subjects be of the same faith as they were, and the law of the land was usually to kill heretics. In fact, many committed heresy just so they could get a lighter sentence from the Inquisition than from the king.
[/quote]
The bible actually has a very clear instructions on identification of false prophets. I am sure you know this process.[/QUOTE]
And I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Now you are comparing me to Satan! These are not my words! Do a fact check on them. I beg you to verify it outside the bias of the "catholic encyclopedia". Prove me wrong. Please!

Why should I read your cut and paste job...if you didn't write them, then I'm not comparing you to anyone. I'm comparing the author to Satan.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And the killing of millions of Muslims is not a moral issue?

Proof that Christians killed MILLIONS of Muslims?

Reread history, it was absolutely not defensive. It was an excuse for the church and kings to grab power and wealth.

Your knowledge of history is...nevermind.

I can absolutely forgive a transgression that someone made against me but I cannot forgive sin. Because sin a transgression against God. Who are you, the priest, the pope, or anyone for that matter have the authority to forgive and absolve someone's transgressions against God? That is between the individual and God.

God forgives sin, Him alone. The priest only declares, in the name of Jesus, that your sin is forgiven.

 

[Goatee]

Posted this in another thread. It would be worth the Non-Catholics watching to the end as it may show you where you are going wrong in your attacks of the Catholic faith:

Watch this video. Really informative. Watch all the way through:

 

[Root of Jesse]

The main tragedy of the Crusades came in the form of Eastern Christian deaths, frankly.

Totally agree. When you put fighting men in a place with little to do, they...fight.

 

[Goatee]

This thread is a never ending circle of non Catholics and Catholics putting the same arguments forward. As a Catholic though, we have a duty to show you non Catholics the 'Right' way! lol

 

[Root of Jesse]

I already did.

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; fromworth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

There are several degrees of this worship:

• if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria.This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.
• When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, ofangels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worshipdependent on the first, and relative, in so far as ithonours the creatures of God for their peculiar relationswith Him; it is designated by theologians as the worshipof dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants ofGod, that their service to Him is their title to ourveneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, andBouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).
• As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and historyof these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728)."

http://newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

Want respect? Put "I worship Mary" on your tagline or signature.


If I were you, I wouldn't deny it, but I would iterate that the RC has a "broader definition of "worship" that might serve to reduce the shock to protestant sensibilities". I offer that as a friendly suggestion to deal with the terminology problem. I feel offended or at least misrepresented when called a Calvinist and respond with, "I agree with his soteriology but part ways with him on sacramentology (I favor Zwingli) and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline (to cover his Servitus problem).

I will do just that. Not that I care about your respect...

 

[Goatee]

Some interesting quotes for you Non--Catholics. God bless you


The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (CCC 83)

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt. 28:19-20)

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

• "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)

"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have to agree with this statement because the focus of a Christian is Christ and if the focus is on Mary, some cause etc and not on Christ then Who is being fooled. The self is being fooled.

Hebrews 10:7 (KJV)
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.​

For those who's focus is not on Christ then it's very easy to downplay God's word and replace it with an other so as not to be accountable to Christ, but in the long run that is not possible.

The focus is not on Mary, she only reflects the light of Christ.