A few questions for Protestants

[Albion]

Actually, transubstantiation is a completely valid interpretation of the New Testament pericopes which deal with the Eucharist. I would further argue that it is more valid than Zwinglianism and Memorialism.

Certainly it is truer to the earlier belief than those are, being that Transubstantiation is usually considered to be a version of the doctrine of the Real Presence!

However, I would maintain that the Apostolic belief was just that--Real Presence--whereas Transubstantiation, properly understood, adds a lot of mechanics to the belief which cannot substantiated by reference to the ECFs and the early church and that the approach is, in fact, typically Medieval.

 

[Valletta]

Because like I said most interpretations don’t take the early church writings and doctrines into account. There’s a lot of evidence out there that people plain out don’t want to see because they don’t want to admit they are wrong, so they attack it and reject it. The biggest problem people have with church history is simply because of the Roman Catholic church’s claim as being the apostolic church. Just their name having the word Catholic on it drags the church of God’s name thru the mud. Most people rejected anything remotely related to the word Catholic because of the Roman church which blinds them from the truth about the church because they don’t know anything about church history.

"Catholic" means "universal, we have a record of the term being used by Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s. His audience was obviously enough familiar with it at that time for him to use it. While Hindus and pagans reject a lot of Catholicism, many Christian religions accept much of what the Catholic Church teaches. For example, most accept the majority of the books of the Bible and have even adopted the order of books that the Catholic Church established in the late 300s. Unfortunately a lot of non-Catholics don't know much about actual Church history.

 

[timothyu]

Unfortunately a lot of non-Catholics don't know much about actual Church history.

They usually only have a neutral view of that history.

 

[Albion]

Because like I said most interpretations don’t take the early church writings and doctrines into account.

Whether or not they do this, it doesn't change a thing about the point at hand.

These alternatives to Sola Scriptura also do produce varied interpretations, whatever the reason. That means that the criticism of Sola Scriptura which we often are given, which is that it has to be wrong because belief in it produces a wide range of interpretations, is in error.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Catholic" means "universal, we have a record of the term being used by Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s. His audience was obviously enough familiar with it at that time for him to use it. While Hindus and pagans reject a lot of Catholicism, many Christian religions accept much of what the Catholic Church teaches. For example, most accept the majority of the books of the Bible and have even adopted the order of books that the Catholic Church established in the late 300s. Unfortunately a lot of non-Catholics don't know much about actual Church history.

Yes in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans written in 107AD he mentions the church by name as the Church of God in his opening statements then towards the end of the epistle he describes the church as being universal “Catholic” in nature. To my knowledge it was St Iranaeus who was the first to mention the Catholic Church by name in his writing Adversus Haereses written in 170AD. So it is generally accepted that the church adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD and 170AD.

 

[Albion]

"Catholic" means "universal, we have a record of the term being used by Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s.

Yes, but he certainly was not referring to any particular church organization when saying that. The reference was to the authentic belief, otherwise termed the "universal" one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Whether or not they do this, it doesn't change a thing about the point at hand.

These alternatives to Sola Scriptura also do produce varied interpretations, whatever the reason. That means that the criticism of Sola Scriptura which we often are given, which is that it has to be wrong because belief in it produces a wide range of interpretations, is in error.

Im saying that sola scriptura is inconclusive in determining sound doctrine. There is more evidence that should be taken into consideration.

 

[Albion]

Im saying that sola scriptura is inconclusive in determining sound doctrine. There is more evidence that should be taken into consideration.

Well, Sola Scriptura does not ban such as reasoning and precedent from being taken into consideration for purposes of clarification. But this is quite different from the idea that "Tradition" or legends or longstanding customs somewhere or other in the Christian world offer a valid alternative to the word of God or that turning to them prevents a variety of different interpretations from being heard.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, Sola Scriptura does not ban such as reasoning and precedent from being taken into consideration for purposes of clarification. But this is quite different from the idea that "Tradition" or legends or longstanding customs somewhere or other in the Christian world offer a valid alternative to the word of God or that turning to them prevents a variety of different interpretations from being heard.

Sola scriptura has failed for over 500 years. When people say the Bible is my authority that basically allows them to interpret it however they want. There’s only one correct interpretation and obviously sola scriptura isn’t leading people to only one interpretation.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura has failed for over 500 years.

Well, your criticisms have been shown a number of times to be mistaken.

You said it leads to different interpretations, but so do all the other methods.

And now you say that "obviously sola scriptura isn’t leading people to only one interpretation" which isn't even what Sola Scriptura is all about or what the term refers to!

And that has also been explained over and over again, too.

 

[Valletta]

Well, your criticisms have been shown a number of times to be mistaken.

You said it leads to different interpretations, but so do all the other methods.

And now you say that "obviously sola scriptura isn’t leading people to only one interpretation" which isn't even what Sola Scriptura is all about or what the term refers to!

And that has also been explained over and over again, too.

He did not say that was what Sola Scriptura was all about or what it refers to, he said it leads to multiple interpretations.

2 Peter 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, RSVCE

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. RSVCE

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, your criticisms have been shown a number of times to be mistaken.

You said it leads to different interpretations, but so do all the other methods.

And now you say that "obviously sola scriptura isn’t leading people to only one interpretation" which isn't even what Sola Scriptura is all about or what the term refers to!

And that has also been explained over and over again, too.

The term is ultimately useless until it is put into practice. Yes the concept itself is sound but the whole idea behind it is to put that concept into practice. When people say they believe in sola scriptura what they are saying is that they believe that the Bible holds the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word but when they actually study the Bible that infallible authority is handicapped and rendered useless because it is subject to personal interpretation. That’s when sola scriptura becomes useless. Sola scriptura being the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word doesn’t do anyone a bit of good when it is subject to personal interpretation and brings about all kinds of different beliefs, but when the scriptures are interpreted in such a manner that coincides with early church writings people get a more comprehensive understanding of what the apostles actually taught which is why I prefer prima scriptura in the case of scriptural interpretation because it still implies that the Bible is the final authority but also encompasses other means of access to God’s word as well, unless you believe that there isn’t a single other church writing out there that is correct. Sola scriptura means that everything else is incorrect and that only the Bible is correct.

 

[Fidelibus]

No one interprets scripture perfectly.

Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

Certainly not the Catholic church.. .

This tells me you do not know as much of the Catholic Church and her teachings that you think you do. Here’s what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding the authority of the Bible and the Church.

CCC#86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

In the future, may I suggest, and if you want Catholics to put any credence in your postings regarding our Catholic faith, you may want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and actually see what the Catholic Church teaches and does not teach before posting.

Have a Blessed Day

 

[Albion]

He did not say that was what Sola Scriptura was all about or what it refers to, he said it leads to multiple interpretations.

All right, but so do all the alternatives! So what is the point of constantly saying that Sola Scriptura leads to multiple interpretations?

But in addition, it is the case that Sola Scriptura DOES not mean that there's one interpretation anyway.

It means that Scripture is the ultimate authority for determining essential doctrine. It may have other pros or cons in the mind of unsympathetic onlookers, but the term itself does not imply any particular interpretation.

 

[renniks]

Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?



This tells me you do not know as much of the Catholic Church and her teachings that you think you do. Here’s what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding the authority of the Bible and the Church.

CCC#86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

In the future, may I suggest, and if you want Catholics to put any credence in your postings regarding our Catholic faith, you may want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and actually see what the Catholic Church teaches and does not teach before posting.

Have a Blessed Day

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

 

[Albion]

The term is ultimately useless until it is put into practice.

That comment is sophistry IMO.

The term (Sola Scriptura) has a meaning. You've been told what it is. You, however, persist in saying that it means something else.

You choose your own definition in preference to what the term actually means. There is no "ultimately useless" problem with the term if it is correctly understood.

 

[Albion]

This tells me you do not know as much of the Catholic Church and her teachings that you think you do. Here’s what the Catholic Church Teaches regarding the authority of the Bible and the Church.

CCC#86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.

Does it? Or is that simply the Church's claim?

At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.

which of course is similar to what every denomination would say about its own doctrinal system. We would expect any of the, no matter what system it follows, to say that it works without the Holy Spirit, doesn't listen to the Holy Spirit, or guard the truth with dedication.

You present this as proof of something or other, but it's strictly a self-serving explanation on the part of the Church. By comparison, Sola Scriptura is not that way, for that concept simply says that there is nothing more authoritative than the word of God. And the Roman Catholic Church doesn't take exception to the idea that the Bible is divine revelation.

Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

Not necessarily. Probably all of us here have been given good advice at times, been the recipient of wise guidance, and so on...but didn't follow it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That comment is sophistry IMO.

The term (Sola Scriptura) has a meaning. You've been told what it is. You, however, persist in saying that it means something else.

You choose your own definition in preference to what the term actually means. There is no "ultimately useless" problem with the term if it is correctly understood.

No let’s just put in the open then, what is your definition of sola scriptura?

 

[Albion]

No let’s just put in the open then, what is your definition of sola scriptura?

How many times have I explained it already!? That aside, here's a reference source that does a good job of defining the term:

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? (ligonier.org)

 

[Valletta]

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

There are none. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.