Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Rick Otto]

Neither. We're looking at Protestants bearing false witness and slandering the church.

I get it.
Define church wrong, get most everything about it wrong.
Let's just peacefully agree to disagree, shall we?

 

[Rick Otto]

"chilehed, post:This sounds like you're a solipsist. Solipsism is ultimately self contradicting, but if it were true the point of the OP would be moot and you've likely been spending an awful lot of time in a corner somewhere talking to yourself. *grin*

How much is a new irony meter?

That's not quite what I said. But in fact, a lot of random schmos wrote documents that claimed to be works of the Apostles. That was one of the problems that the councils intended address

.
They could've done better dispensing with the "Donation of Constantine" forgery, too - thinking of documents.
I wonder how their record on Tradition revisions really is.
Oh well,...

And if the decision was erroneous, if some of the books included in the canon shouldn't be there, then we can't be sure that any specific part of the bible is actually the inerrant work of God.

Slow down. Who you callin' "we", paleface?
If you don't have Him inside you, you won't know anything spiritual anyway. (1 Cor 2:14)
Your way of knowing seems to trend toward the tangible.
Am I wrong about that?

Irrelevant. In the end the councils made a decision, and every one that dealt with the question, from Hippo to Trent, agreed on the same set of books. What matters is the decision, not the messy process that preceded the decision. The only question that matters is "was the decision right, or was it wrong?".

Either way, examining the process is the only way to investigate the answer. This just amounts to "go along and be right" or "protest and be wrong".
Might makes right and money talks.
Tragedy, that.

 

[Rick Otto]

How can an oral tradition be more trustworthy than script?

 

[Albion]

The RCC believes this too. Trent clearly states that converts are justified at conversion by grace thru faith apart from works.

But unless you die immediately, you will need to perform works in order to be saved.

How is asking a Christian in Heaven to pray for you any different than asking a Christian on Earth to pray for you?

1. They're dead.
2. There is no scriptural directive to pray to them, as there is with your neighbor.
3. You have no way of knowing if the dead are in heaven, can hear your prayer, can do anything about it...or not.

The problem with that is faith is often alone in people I've met and their pastor's all convinced them they are saved.

When you cite document in order to prove the Catholic position correct but insist upon citing what some alleged Protestant minister or laymen does in order to prove what you want us to think the Protestant teaching is, you're not being straightforward and the argument is not valid.

The problem is the premise that faith always results in godliness is completely false especially when faith is watered down to just believing one verse of scripture (Rom 10:9).

What church body teaches that?

 

[Albion]

This sounds like you're a solipsist.

Over 60,000 posts on C.F. and NOW you tell me!

Don't answer that. Oh wait, you can't.

But why am I writing this if you don't exist????

 

[PeaceByJesus]

As I said, that's off topic when discoursing with Orthodox Christians, because we never had a Pope telling us what to do. The idea of Papal Supremacy was never part of the Eastern churches.

Look who agrees:

The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West...

In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century (Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), pp. 26-27).

"The problem of Sola Scriptura being an inconsistently held doctrine that allows for all of the divisions that Protestantism has, that's on topic.

The use of the term "Protestantism" by Catholics is basically meaningless, being typically so broad you could fit a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 in it.

And the problem with democracies is that that it allows for all of the divisions that America has, and therefore the founding fathers were wrong and we need a sovereign monarchy, rather than letting the people choose who is following the Constitution.

And the problem with 1st century souls - consistent with the Catholic model for validity - was that they rejected the valid historical magisterium, and followed itinerant preachers whom the former rejected, and presumed to establish their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

The premise that division due to a practice means such is invalid is itself invalid, and SS does not claim to prevent division, or need to. But does it enable strong practical core unity among those who most strongly hold to Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, which I believe SS requires. It was because of common strong consent that the modern evangelical movement arose, and even in the diluted sense of the term is still more hated by liberals then Catholics overall.

For apart from the limited unity in Catholicism, which is largely on paper, survey after survey testifies that those whom Catholicism counts as members widely disagree with each other, and tend to be mostly liberal on Biblical views. As is Catholic scholarship in the West.

SS as I support it, simply refers to a sole infallible authoritative source as being the standard for faith, versus a mortal or office of such, and as sufficient in formally and materially providing what is needed for the Christian faith.

This does not marginalize the need and authority of the teaching office of the church, which Westminster upholds, but not as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but veracity rests upon upon the degree of Scriptural support.

Of course, the apostles also added to what was written, speaking the word of God orally as wholly inspired of God, and which also could include new revelation, neither of which do I see Catholicism doing, while its claim to oral tradition being the word of God is akin to that of Judaism. Both have a specious claim to oral tradition in the light of what is written as wholly inspired of God.

"You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.""

As your premise is false then so is your conclusion. SS does not and need not contain all there is to know in the realm of faith, nor can you say Oral T. provides it.

But God has always provided what man needs to know to be saved and obey Him, though giving more grace according to His will. Scripture only needs to provide what God has chosen to provide man with for the life of faith in this era.

 

[samir]

I get it.
Define church wrong, get most everything about it wrong.
Let's just peacefully agree to disagree, shall we?

The facts are clear. The RCC granted indulgences for good deeds. The myth of selling indulgences is related to one of those good deeds being donating money to the church. It was a practice, not a tradition, that the RCC ended because of the potential for abuse and confusion among Protestants.

The burning at the stake during the Inquisition was carried out by civil governments at the RCC's request, not by the RCC itself. Also, burning heretics is a practice, not a tradition. Practices can change. Apostolic tradition does not change.

 

[samir]

But unless you die immediately, you will need to perform works in order to be saved

The RC teaching is those who are justified are infused with charity/love of God at conversion. As long as they continue to love God they will remain justified. No works need to be performed in order to become saved or stay saved. They are only necessary in the sense that neglecting to do what you ought to do (such as refusing to helping a neighbor who is seriously injured and in need of medical attention or refusing to worship God) can be a mortal sin of omission that indicates you do not love God.

1. They're dead.

That's sad if your church teaches that. Unlike the OT saints who died and went to Sheol, the RC and OC believes the saints in the NT go to heaven when they die so they're actually more alive than us on earth.

2. There is no scriptural directive to pray to them, as there is with your neighbor.

There is no scriptural directive for many things believers do either but that doesn't mean they should be avoided.

3. You have no way of knowing if the dead are in heaven, can hear your prayer, can do anything about it...or not.

All that means is your request wasn't heard and you wasted your time. No big deal. I'd say it's worth it given the benefit of those who do hear your prayers of being able to bring your request to God.

When you cite document in order to prove the Catholic position correct but insist upon citing what some alleged Protestant minister or laymen does in order to prove what you want us to think the Protestant teaching is, you're not being straightforward and the argument is not valid.

The Catholic Church has one position/teaching. Protestantism is divided into thousands of denominations so there is no such thing as "the Protestant teaching." If I attend a Protestant church and a pastor says you just have to believe in the resurrection and your salvation is guaranteed then that is one of the many Protestant teachings. It's not alleged, it's a fact, since I heard it with my own ears so it is perfectly valid to refer to it.

What church body teaches that?

Many of the non-denominational Protestant congregations where I live. It is literally what Romans 10:9 says when read out of context.

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

They point to that verse and say, "See. That's it. It says those who believe that will be saved so nothing else is required."

 

[PapaZoom]

Yeah, they sold indulgences. Amazing how some try to spin out of it. http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his101/web/37luther.htm

 

[Philip_B]

How can an oral tradition be more trustworthy than script?

The oral tradition in most cultures is extremely reliable, until you have a written tradition that exists within a literate community. The irony is the better we get at reading and writing the less reliably we handle the oral traditions. Writing does however freeze them in time. We have probably only really had a literate population in the west for about 300 or so years. If you have done any family history you realise that not to far back spelling was an optional extra!

 

[samir]

Yeah, they sold indulgences. Amazing how some try to spin out of it. http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his101/web/37luther.htm

That link is merely someone's opinion. Although giving someone an indulgence for donating $10 to the church sounds similar to selling an indulgence for $10 it is not the same so claiming they sold indulgences without explaining what actually happened is bearing false witness. Amazing how some who claim to follow scripture have no problem bearing false witness despite scripture saying God hates a lying tongue.

 

[Philip_B]

That link is merely someone's opinion. Although giving someone an indulgence for donating $10 to the church sounds similar to selling an indulgence for $10 it is not the same so claiming they sold indulgences without explaining what actually happened is bearing false witness. Amazing how some who claim to follow scripture have no problem bearing false witness despite scripture saying God hates a lying tongue.

I thought they were funding the building program!

 

[PapaZoom]

That link is merely someone's opinion. Although giving someone an indulgence for donating $10 to the church sounds similar to selling an indulgence for $10 it is not the same so claiming they sold indulgences without explaining what actually happened is bearing false witness. Amazing how some who claim to follow scripture have no problem bearing false witness despite scripture saying God hates a lying tongue.

And yours is just an opinion. But it seems as though you acknowledge the practice of selling indulgence by the church.

 

[samir]

And yours is just an opinion.

No. It's a fact.

But it seems as though you acknowledge the practice of selling indulgence by the church.

No. I said just the opposite.

 

[Albion]

The facts are clear. The RCC granted indulgences for good deeds. The myth of selling indulgences is related to one of those good deeds being donating money to the church. It was a practice, not a tradition, that the RCC ended because of the potential for abuse and confusion among Protestants.

It's true that the RCC granted--and still does grant--indulgences for good deeds. But an indulgence has meaning ONLY as it relates to Purgatory, which is NOT a tradition but was invented during the Late Middle Ages, shortly before it became an issue in the German states and with Dr. Luther.

 

[Albion]

The RC teaching is those who are justified are infused with charity/love of God at conversion. As long as they continue to love God they will remain justified. No works need to be performed in order to become saved or stay saved.

You're mistaken.

That's sad if your church teaches that.

Not only does my church teach when you cease to breathe, your brain waves go flat, and your heart stops beating, it's called being "dead," but so does every other one.

The Catholic Church has one position/teaching. Protestantism is divided into thousands of denominations so there is no such thing as "the Protestant teaching."

There is no "the Protestant Church, " either, so you're trying to make the RCC look united by comparing it--a single denomination--with thousands of other churches at once. I can make almost any denomination look to be the One True Church if I pull that trick.

That's what Catholics are taught to say about "non-Catholics," just like insisting that being "dead" is denial of the afterlife. You have it memorized so well that, in the future, you might just as well not bother to recite the whole line to us but merely say "not dead claim" or "all Protestant churches treated as if one church" instead.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.

1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.

4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.

By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.

Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.

So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.

God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking. God has not spoken and stopped. He is always speaking all the time. I think scripture, as SS seems to suggest, is meant to help test to see if that voice is of God or another.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.

Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

I have asked Catholics this and they can't. Maybe you can.

 

[Albion]

God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking.

Is he speaking new information that corrects or supplements what he revealed in Scripture, which itself tells us that what is revealed there is sufficient?

He is always speaking all the time.

There's quite a difference between new revelation given to all mankind...and speaking, as needed, to individuals without altering the testimony of Scripture.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking. God has not spoken and stopped. He is always speaking all the time. I think scripture, as SS seems to suggest, is meant to help test to see if that voice is of God or another.

Yes, God continues to speak to us through the Holy Spirit. That in no way counters SS. You profess that what one teaches should be tested against scripture, that means it is not a new revelation. The opposing view is that some churches have divine inspiration that is outside of scripture and must be accepted true because they say it is true.