WHY SOLA SCRIPTURA MAKES SENSE - UPDATED.
- Thread starter LoveGodsWord
- Start date
Make a wish and remove the Catholic Church from the face of the earth, and you still won't have proven your rule of faith, sola scriptura. That's what this thread is about. Not about the Catholic Church, the Mormons, the Mooneys or Mickey Mouse. It's about Sola Scriptura.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Yet your original comments defended a position where the EO, OO, etc were Catholic. This has relevance because your point is if Protestants all use Sola Scriptura, then why are their beliefs different? If the EO and Roman Catholic church both hold true to the Sacred Scriptures and Church Tradition, have the same access to the Early Church Father's writings and ecumenical councils, then why are there differences in doctrines and frankly some Traditions?
Upvote
0
No your point is off-topic once more. If the question is "why are you wrong", the answer is not "because I believe someone else is wrong too". This thread is about sola scriptura, not about what else is there on the market that could be better or worse.
Upvote
0
From here on you will have to settle for a monologue, as I will no longer reply to your arguments unless they are relevant to the topic of this thread.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't think so. Here's what the Apostle Peter says:
2 Peter 3: NASB
14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
For verse 16, the burden of proof is on you to show what is being distorted and who the untaught truly are. Meaning what or who was Peter, in that time period as he penned the epistle, referring to? Judaizers? False teachers? Which Protestant doctrine can you point to would apply to what Peter discusses here? Also, what were some of the things the Apostle Paul taught which were hard to understand? It seems Paul discussed in many of his epistles and in the witness of the Acts of the Apostles the false doctrines of legalists.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm on topic because I presented a dilemma (for you) in painting Sola Scriptura as something it is not. Your premise is the Roman Catholic church has not changed from Pentecost. The EOs believe that too yet they are separated from the CC.
Upvote
0
No, I don't need to answer your questions and prove them. That is a diversion tactic I will not fall for. I simply need to read Scripture and believe what is being said here:
1. Paul's letters are difficult to understand.
2. Some people twist Paul's letters and the rest of Scripture.
3. Who is doing that? The unlearned and unstable.
4. What will be the result? Their own destruction.
If you disagree with St. Peter, please tell me why. And if want to argue that this scripture is compatible with sola scriptura, you need to show me how the unlearned and unstable can use your rule of faith and avoid their own destruction. Remember, salvation is not just for the learned, but also for the "little ones".
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So we can read the Scriptures and know what they are saying. Interesting.
Peter did not say all of them. So specificity is key here. Maybe your church has an infallible interpretation of this verse?
Yes some people, but who or what was Peter referring to? Who says I cannot apply this to the Roman Catholic church?
Yes, which would be anyone or any group who deviated from Apostolic teachings.
What would cause this destruction? A deviation from the Gospel preached by the Apostles? See Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 where Peter, Paul and Barnabas defend the Gospel of Grace.
I don't disagree with the Apostle Peter. He was quite clear at the Jerusalem council.
Let's test that. You have the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) right? How many pro-abortion and pro-gay 'marriage', and pro-contraceptive bishops, priests and laymen do you have in the Catholic church? I mean the CCC is clear on Life and Marriage, yet those still in communion with the CC are not following the CCC and still getting the Eucharist. Does this mean the CCC is in error, or the people trying to put their own ideas into it or just rejecting it.
Is the Roman Catholic church of Pope St. John-Paul II the same as the one under Pope Francis?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Interesting wording...
but I'm not familiar with it.
Scripture is materially sufficient...
IOW, it has all we need to know to achieve salvation.
Formally sufficient.
IOW, HOW is that transferred to a person's day to day life? Or HOW do we apply this knowledge?
Please clarify.
For instance,,,we all know we are to be baptized...
but WHO, HOW, WHY, WHEN?
Upvote
0
Take a Swiss watch, disassemble it, put all pieces in a pile and ask someone what it is. Most likely they will not know, even though all the pieces that a Switch watch is made of are there. Tell him it is a Swiss watch, but he still won't be able to use it to tell the time. Only when someone puts all the pieces together will we be able to use the watch. Material sufficiency means "all the pieces [material] are there", formal sufficiency means "all the pieces are placed together in the right order [form] for anyone to use correctly."
As for your example, baptism. If "baptism now saves" (1 Peter 3:21), does that mean that infants need to be baptised? Take a poll among Protestants and you will find both answers, some say yes, some say no. The truth can only be one of them.
Both Catholics and Protestants believe in the material sufficiency of the Bible. "It's all there".
Only Protestants believe in the formal sufficiency of the Bible, but they cannot prove it. They say the Bible is sufficiently clear, but their doctrinal divisions prove otherwise. To get around that they have to reduce what the Bible teaches to "some things are essential, some things are optional", but even then they cannot agree on what are the essentials because the Bible does not say this.
Catholics believe there is something else we need to understand the Bible, which they have, and thus they are one in doctrine. Anyone who with full knowledge and consent rejects one article of faith rejects them all and cannot be saved, just like someone who takes one essential part out of a Swiss watch will break it and can no longer tell the time. Only Catholics accept ALL the pieces of the Swiss watch.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 28, 2017
- 3,779
- 2,856
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Check out this verse everyone. Something to think about :
Therefore, Brethren, Stand Fast And Hold The Traditions Which You Were Taught,
Whether By Word OR Our Epistle.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:15
.
Therefore, Brethren, Stand Fast And Hold The Traditions Which You Were Taught,
Whether By Word OR Our Epistle.
• 2 Thessalonians 2:15
.
Upvote
0
You mention form and material. I understand you now.
This reminds me of the Eucharist...it's form and substance. The form remains the same, but the substance changes. In every other instance, the form changes, but the substance remains the same.
( a pc of wood is still wood but can become a chair).
I agree with you as to the fact that Protestants cannot agree on what many verses mean.
I do have to take issue with you regarding two items You mentioned:
1. You say that only Catholics accept all the pieces of the watch -- all the doctrine. You must surely know that not all Catholics accept every single doctrine,,,although they're supposed to. I hope you know what a priest would tell you about this problem....they know very well that not all accept every doctrine. They do not believe that person would be lost...this is something that is believed only by the congregation.
The problem, as I see it, is that the CC has added and changed some of the early doctrine (teachings) of the church. I'm rather sorry this happened because in the beginning the church was good and pure and did its best to follow Jesus' teachings.
So, I believe that Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone agrees on everything (which even priests do not), but it means that the AUTHORITY by which we are to live and be Christian must come ONLY from the bible.
We see what has happened when the church, the CC, moved away from this.
Take baptism, for instance, which I used as an example. Babies were not baptized for salvation purposes...there were other reasons which were acceptable to me.
Then Augustine came along in 400AD and changed the teaching of Original Sin. 400 YEARS AFTER JESUS DIED! And why was his teaching accepted? Don't care to get into it here, but it should NEVER have been accepted by the church. It changed everything.
And, BTW, the CC at times things to change baptism for adults only, but now is not the time for any big change. It does NOT believe babies that die sans baptism go to hell and it does not teach this.
2. I do believe in Tradition BTW.
But the church has changed Tradition.
I understand Tradition being what came out of the church PRE the Nicene Council in 325AD.
Do you agree that the church has changed many early teachings?
Can you agree that this has happened because it does not believe in only the Authority of the bible, but in the Authority of Tradition and the authority of the magesterium.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
When you say that "not all Catholics accept every single doctrine", I agree in the sense that not all Catholics know (and therefore accept) what the Church teaches. In fact, the vast majority of Catholics today are utterly ignorant of even the most basic teachings of the Church, which is one of the main reasons some decide to leave the Church. We call these Catholics in error. And unless their ignorance is invincible (they cannot help it) it is a sin, but this sin may or may not be grave enough for these Catholics to lose their soul.
But if or when a Catholic knows what the Church teaches with authority and then refuses to accept it, he is no longer a Catholic but has become a heretic. A heretic is therefore one who chooses his own opinion over the opinion of a higher authority. Many heretics refuse to admit their heresy and remain within the buildings of their congregation, claiming to still be Catholic, but they are not. Heresy is a "sin unto death" as St. Paul calls it, and formal heretics cannot save their souls unless before their death they repent and rejoin the Catholic Church.
What makes things even worse is when these Catholics in error or in heresy assume high positions within the Church and teach others their errors and/or heresies. A good example of this is the Arian crisis. They may teach in the name of the Church, like false prophets claim to speak for God, but they are what Our Lord calls "false shepherds" and "wolves in sheep clothing".
So yes, in today's world, there are many who claim to be Catholic, but they are either in error (through ignorance) or in heresy. And this is a great scandal and stumbling block to good Catholics trying to keep and defend the truth, and to non-Catholics in trying to find the truth.
The Church has never changed a doctrine that she declared to be of faith. What has happened, and what still can happen today, is that some doctrines were never taught explicitly, even though they were taught, accepted and handed on implicitly. When at some point a controversy arises, the Church then steps in, considers the matter carefully and decides what is, and has always been, the correct teaching. She then makes this teaching explicit, whereas before it was implicit. When such a declaration is made, the matter is closed and all Catholics must accept the Church's ruling on it, not because she made up a new doctrine, but because she explicated what the doctrine had always been. If then they refuse to reject the Church's teaching on this matter they become heretics.
We already see an example of this in Scripture when Paul stood Peter to the face. But in the end, it was Peter who spoke last and the matter was closed.
So, the way the Church decides what has always been believed and what is therefore the truth is by examining both Scripture and Tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which Our Lord told us He would send for that purpose, and which Our Lord promised would remain with us until the end of time.
By the way, many Protestants have joined the Catholic Church after reading the Early Church Fathers. They saw for themselves how Catholic these early Christians really were, and how utterly foreign the doctrines of Protestantism are to what the early Christians believed and practised.
The error in that statement is the word "only", or "sola". When Jesus walked the earth, was He the only authority or was it Scripture? They both were the final authority, but neither of them was the only authority.
No. The Church has changed many customs or traditions (with a lowercase), because Christ gave Her the authority to "bind and loose". But She has never changed teachings that She had already declared as binding. Men in the Church have often debated and opined about doctrine. But once the Church has authoritatively decided which doctrine is to be held as the correct doctrine, She has NEVER gone back on this. If you believe otherwise, give me one example. But maybe not in this thread, as it is about sola scriptura, not about the Catholic Church.
Upvote
0
Albion
Facilitator
We are to be baptized. You know that from Scripture and nothing else is needed for you to know it. The "how" was shown to us by Christ himself. We have that in Scripture. Do you suppose that which day of the week or which Christian should be the baptizer is essential? The Catholic Church, by the way, does not insist that it be a deacon, priest, or bishop.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
