Catholicism vs Sola Scriptura

[CanIHunt]

Hi, I am debating in my mind the merits of the Catholic faith vs Sola Scriptura. I understand this is a deep issue with many angles, but I hope that I can get some clarity on one specific point.

I read that Protestants believe the powers Jesus gave the Apostles and the divine inspiration given to them ended with their physical death. They point to Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1 as examples that Apostles needed to see Jesus resurrection to be considered an Apostle.

I know that Catholics believe the Church and the magisterium have authority and divine inspiration to interpret the Scripture in the present day. What scripture do Catholics have to point to that proves the powers given the Apostles by Jesus have been passed down to this day?

Thank you.

 

[concretecamper]

Hi, I am debating in my mind the merits of the Catholic faith vs Sola Scriptura. I understand this is a deep issue with many angles, but I hope that I can get some clarity on one specific point.

I read that Protestants believe the powers Jesus gave the Apostles and the divine inspiration given to them ended with their physical death. They point to Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1 as examples that Apostles needed to see Jesus resurrection to be considered an Apostle.

I know that Catholics believe the Church and the magisterium have authority and divine inspiration to interpret the Scripture in the present day. What scripture do Catholics have to point to that proves the powers given the Apostles by Jesus have been passed down to this day?

Thank you.

http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Scripture Catholic - The Church

Enjoy

 

[chilehed]

To clarify a point: Catholic teaching does not hold that the Bishops of today have the same divine inspiration as the Apostles did. Divine revelation ceased with the Apostles.

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; Matt. 28:20b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)
12. St. Peter has a preeminent place among the Apostles. (Matthew 16:17-19; Isaiah 22:20-25)
13. The Apostles, and not the believers at large, had the authority to interpret Scripture and teach binding doctrine. (Rom 13:1-2; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2, 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. Numbers 16))
14. The Magesterium (the teaching authority of Christ’s Church) exercised that authority to make binding decisions on matters of faith. (Acts 15)
15. The teaching authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles extended to the Apostles’ successors. (Acts 1:20,26; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 3:9-11)
16. The early Church believed in the succession of Magesterial authority. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyprian of Carthage)

The overwhelming evidence from Sacred Scripture and from extra-biblical historical documentation is that Jesus founded a Church with a visible, hierarchical and infallible teaching authority vested in the successor to St. Peter and the Bishops in union with him.

 

[Chesster]

Priests inherit their powers by the imposition of hands:

"And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed." Acts 14:22

"Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." 1 Tim 4:14

"For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands." 2 Tim 1:6

"Impose not hands lightly upon any man . . ." 1 Tim 5:22

 

[mark46]

Hi, I am debating in my mind the merits of the Catholic faith vs Sola Scriptura. I understand this is a deep issue with many angles, but I hope that I can get some clarity on one specific point.

I read that Protestants believe the powers Jesus gave the Apostles and the divine inspiration given to them ended with their physical death. They point to Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1 as examples that Apostles needed to see Jesus resurrection to be considered an Apostle.

I know that Catholics believe the Church and the magisterium have authority and divine inspiration to interpret the Scripture in the present day. What scripture do Catholics have to point to that proves the powers given the Apostles by Jesus have been passed down to this day?

Thank you.

IMHO, Sola scriptura vs the Catholic Church is a strange debate. I suspect that you are not using the term as it has been used in the Church for 1000 years, but rather using the very new doctrine that supposes that Scripture is self explanatory, or the 18th century doctrine that unless something is clearly in Scripture, we do not need to believe or should not believe this.

Sometimes we call the view of some evangelicals "solo scripture", which is not the doctrine of sola scripture at all.

There is no new revelation after the apostles. However, I don't understand why so many Protestants wish to ignore the interpretations of the Church for the past 2000 years (including Luther and Calvin), and instead depend on their own personal interpretation of scripture (or that of their pastor). One hopes that these individuals have excellent skills in ancient languages and customs so that they can understand the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. After all, it might be useful to understand what the words and concepts actually mean to those being spoken to.

Without the tradition of the Church, there is chaos. IMHO, it is not appropriate for each generation (and even each person) to re-interpret scripture as they please, and think that somehow the Holy Spirit has spoken to them and given them the True interpretation that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed and other churches have missed for the past 2000 years.

Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Without the tradition of the Church, we all would be free to go to Scripture and come up with different understandings. Let's be clear to each other, as we should be with others, including non-believers. The doctrine of the Trinity is not at all clear in Scripture.

 

[mark46]

Hi, I am debating in my mind the merits of the Catholic faith vs Sola Scriptura. I understand this is a deep issue with many angles, but I hope that I can get some clarity on one specific point.

I read that Protestants believe the powers Jesus gave the Apostles and the divine inspiration given to them ended with their physical death. They point to Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1 as examples that Apostles needed to see Jesus resurrection to be considered an Apostle.

I know that Catholics believe the Church and the magisterium have authority and divine inspiration to interpret the Scripture in the present day. What scripture do Catholics have to point to that proves the powers given the Apostles by Jesus have been passed down to this day?

Thank you.

See attached for the Catholics arguments against the current understanding of "sola scripture" as used by evangelicals.

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

Library : A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura - Catholic Culture


See attached for a good discussion of sola scriptura.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Note that the alternative to the modern evangelical idea is "prima scripture". As I have said, to expect Scripture to be self-explanatory to every individual makes little sense to me.

 

[mark46]

Hi, I am debating in my mind the merits of the Catholic faith vs Sola Scriptura. I understand this is a deep issue with many angles, but I hope that I can get some clarity on one specific point.

I read that Protestants believe the powers Jesus gave the Apostles and the divine inspiration given to them ended with their physical death. They point to Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1 as examples that Apostles needed to see Jesus resurrection to be considered an Apostle.

I know that Catholics believe the Church and the magisterium have authority and divine inspiration to interpret the Scripture in the present day. What scripture do Catholics have to point to that proves the powers given the Apostles by Jesus have been passed down to this day?

Thank you.

What Catholic scholar do you think said the following, emphasizing the importance of tradition, reason and experience? I would hint that the author said that he was a man of one book, and believe the Scripture was primary and the test of all dogma and doctrine.

The living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.


The author was John Wesley, a Protestant. The importance of tradition is not only important to Catholics and Orthodox.

To be clear, reformers like Calvin and Luther did NOT take the position of current evangelicals, better called "solo scripture". Tradition was very important to the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther.

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2011/10/sola_scriptura_is_not_solo_scr.php

As an additional note, I would suggest that RCC, the EO, and the churches of Calvin, Luther and Wesley are not as different on this subject as some imagine. Luther certainly did not favor the private interpretation ideas of current evangelicals. Calvin, Luther, and Wesley were strong supporters of the traditions of the Church, the creeds, and the Early Church Fathers.

There are difference of course. However, we all accept Scripture as primary. It is not as if the creeds of the Church can say anything that is in opposition to Scripture. Perhaps, the best exposition of this subject is not modern at all. It was written by Vincent of Lerins before the year 500. And just BTW, Vincent is one of our holy father's favorites.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/09/pope-francis-looks-to-st-vincent-of-lerins

A FINAL NOTE
Timothy was asked to guard the deposit of faith (2 Tim 1:14). Who is the Timothy of today?

 

[Rhamiel]

as for Acts 1:22
I do not believe it is a commandment for all time
but rather something that made sense in that particular situation
they wanted to give the position to someone with "seniority"
when there were people who had witnessed the resurrection, they would be on the short list to be authorities in the early Church

 

[football5680]

The scripture has no basis or power behind it without the Church to back it up. The 27 books of the New Testament were canonized by the infallible Church and this is what makes the Bible infallible. If you take away the Church you have a bunch of fallible men choosing 27 books that may or may not be correct. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and has been since the beginning of Christianity. Sola Scriptura was impossible for the earliest Christians to practice but they were not sitting around wondering what they should believe because Jesus established the Church for this purpose, not the Bible which came much later.

The authority of the Bible comes from the Church and the Authority of the Church comes from God. If you sever the connection between the Bible and Church, the Bible loses its authority.

 

[chilehed]

The authority of the Bible comes from the Church...

Rather, the Church has the authority to determine what works are to be counted in the canon of Sacred Scripture.

 

[CanIHunt]

IMHO, Sola scriptura vs the Catholic Church is a strange debate. I suspect that you are not using the term as it has been used in the Church for 1000 years, but rather using the very new doctrine that supposes that Scripture is self explanatory, or the 18th century doctrine that unless something is clearly in Scripture, we do not need to believe or should not believe this.

Sometimes we call the view of some evangelicals "solo scripture", which is not the doctrine of sola scripture at all.

There is no new revelation after the apostles. However, I don't understand why so many Protestants wish to ignore the interpretations of the Church for the past 2000 years (including Luther and Calvin), and instead depend on their own personal interpretation of scripture (or that of their pastor). One hopes that these individuals have excellent skills in ancient languages and customs so that they can understand the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. After all, it might be useful to understand what the words and concepts actually mean to those being spoken to.

Without the tradition of the Church, there is chaos. IMHO, it is not appropriate for each generation (and even each person) to re-interpret scripture as they please, and think that somehow the Holy Spirit has spoken to them and given them the True interpretation that the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed and other churches have missed for the past 2000 years.

Consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Without the tradition of the Church, we all would be free to go to Scripture and come up with different understandings. Let's be clear to each other, as we should be with others, including non-believers. The doctrine of the Trinity is not at all clear in Scripture.

thank you for this point.

 

[CanIHunt]

thank you everyone. each of these responses are great and thought provoking. I will stop monitoring this thread now.

 

[classicalhero]

I'd like to point that whenever there was a struggle between scripture and tradition, Jesus always argued with Scripture over the traditions of men.

 

[barryatlake]

Jesus only referenced OT. He was against the Jewish man-made traditions of Korban Rule. Search Jewish Korban Rule.Catholic Church teaches only Christ's God given Apostolic Traditional Teaching. God's Revelation to His Church is preserved via two different but mutually complimentary modes: in written form [ Holy Scripture } and in oral form [ Sacred Tradition ] The Deposit of Faith is both " preached" and " written ". see Luke 10:16, Luke 1: 1-4, John 20: 30-31, 1 Thess. 2:13.

Oral Transmission of the Faith, not Just Written Transmission [ 2 John 12 ] [ 3 John 13 ].

 

[parousia70]

Rather, the Church has the authority to determine what works are to be counted in the canon of Sacred Scripture.

This is why the term Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron, since it's adherents are automatically appealing to an authority outside of scripture (the Church) to determine what is and what isn't scripture in the first place.

 

[Rhamiel]

I'd like to point that whenever there was a struggle between scripture and tradition, Jesus always argued with Scripture over the traditions of men.

this is accurate
but there is a difference between the traditions of men and Sacred Tradition

 

[MoonlessNight]

Rather, the Church has the authority to determine what works are to be counted in the canon of Sacred Scripture.

I would say that it is stronger than that. The canonical works of the Bible are products of the Church. The writings of Paul, for example, were not found by Christians and adopted, but were written by a Christian for Christians within the Church.

That is to say, even the writings themselves arose in the context of Tradition.

 

[brewmama]

Acts 8, 27-31

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace,* that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,h
28
and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30
* Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.i

 

[Shadow316]

as for Acts 1:22
I do not believe it is a commandment for all time
but rather something that made sense in that particular situation
they wanted to give the position to someone with "seniority"
when there were people who had witnessed the resurrection, they would be on the short list to be authorities in the early Church

Is that what the RC teaches or are you interpreting scripture on your own?

If giving the position to seniority, which of the Apostles was still alive after Peter died - to take over as pope?

 

[Shadow316]

The scripture has no basis or power behind it without the Church to back it up. The 27 books of the New Testament were canonized by the infallible Church and this is what makes the Bible infallible. If you take away the Church you have a bunch of fallible men choosing 27 books that may or may not be correct. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and has been since the beginning of Christianity. Sola Scriptura was impossible for the earliest Christians to practice but they were not sitting around wondering what they should believe because Jesus established the Church for this purpose, not the Bible which came much later.

The authority of the Bible comes from the Church and the Authority of the Church comes from God. If you sever the connection between the Bible and Church, the Bible loses its authority.

The authority of the Bible comes from God. The Bible will never lose it's authority. It was the 'authority' long before the RC existed. The OT existed before Jesus was even born.

The church in the time of Jesus and the Apostles was not the RC, but the body of Christ - His followers.

The earliest Christians had Jesus and the Apostles to teach them and as Paul tells us, unless it comes from them we aren't to believe it. Other than what comes from them, the NT has nothing good to say about 'tradition'.