Protestant Doctrine

[xapis]

I was responding to a particular post as your yourself are doing.



The title of this thread is Protestant Doctrine, this particular conversation happens to be about the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Just to avoid confusion, here it is up to this point
Here are the quotes thus far:





Actually, Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, not an epistemology. As the Protestant writer J.F. Foster points out, "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" is successfully articulated and defended in the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Reformation Theology Series) by Don Kistler.
No less an authority than AA Hodge himself states that it is the 1st Protestant Doctrine.
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, DD, President of the Westminister Theological Seminary give a definitive and working description of the definitive "Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" in his treaties on the same subject.
There are endless citations indicating that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, which is the title of this thread.



My point is that, since "Scripture Alone," sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. That is, everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture. No extra-scriptural doctrines are valid. If this is the case, then the Bible must state that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith and contain everything that is necessary for our faith, inclding the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
However, I find that the Bible states that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training. That is a long way from stating that the bible is the sole rule of faith and criterion regarding what is to be believed.
My question: Where in the Bible can I find the statement that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, criterion regarding what is to be believed and that everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture?



As I pointed out in my reply to #2 above, Sola Scriptura certainly is a Protestant doctrine. A doctrine is a teaching or principal, clearly that is what Sola Scriptura is. Also, the well known Protestant site Bible.org's second lesson states "This lesson will center on the doctrine of Christian authority. Here, focus will be on the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura "


Grace and peace to you.

IgnatiusOfAntioch — Feel free to read this article for my general view on this argument: http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

 

[FreeinChrist]

Without the Fathers that came after the Apostles Protestant Schoff who has studied historical Christianity all his life says--

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity (A.D. 311-600), Chapter IX, section 118:

The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament.

"So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament." - No, Schaff did not say that. He gives credit to the early church as do I. However, like Schaff I am not Catholic, nor will I be.

And Schaff also wrote this in Vol. VII
CHAPTER VI.

PROPAGATION AND PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTISM IN
GERMANY TILL 1530.

The Reformation spread over Germany with the spontaneous and irresistible impulse of a great historical movement that struck its roots deep in the wants and necessities of the church. The only propaganda of Luther was the word and the pen, but these he used to the utmost of his time and strength. "There was no need of an arrangement," says Ranke, "or of a concerted agreement, or of any special mission. As at the first favor of the vernal sun the seed sprouts from the ploughed field, so the new convictions, which were prepared by all what men had experienced and heard, made their appearance on the slightest occasion, wherever the German language was spoken."744
The chief causes of progress were the general discontent with papal tyranny and corruption; the desire for light, liberty, and peace of conscience; the thirst for the pure word of God. The chief agencies were the German Bible, which spoke with Divine authority to the reason and conscience, and overawed the human authority of the pope; the German hymns, which sang the comforting doctrines of grace into the hearts of the people; and the writings of Luther, who discussed every question of the day with commanding ability and abundant knowledge, assuring the faith of friends, and crushing the opposition of foes. The force and fertility of his genius as a polemic are amazing, and without a parallel among fathers, schoolmen, and modern divines. He ruled like an absolute monarch in the realm of German theology and religion; and, with the gospel for his shield and weapon, he was always sure of victory.745
What Luther did for the people, Melanchthon accomplished, in his gentle and moderate way, for scholars. In their united labors they were more than a match for all the learning, skill, and material resources of the champions of Rome.

 

[cathmomof3]

IgnatiusOfAntioch — Feel free to read this article for my general view on this argument: http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

I read a good portion of your website on Catholocism and am not surprised that it has distorted what Catholics believe to fit the preconceived notion of what Catholics believe.

 

[xapis]

6:16 P.M.

This is my last post on this topic today...

...still here?

I read a good portion of your website on Catholocism and am not surprised that it has distorted what Catholics believe to fit the preconceived notion of what Catholics believe.

My website or CARM?
Could you please be more specific about what was "distorted"?

Shalom.

 

[cathmomof3]

6:16 P.M.



...still here?



My website or CARM?
Could you please be more specific about what was "distorted"?

Shalom.

I know, I just couldn't stay away! I tried really hard though!!!

Sorry - the CARM website. Sort of hard to explain and I am too tired to take it line by line, but I am referring to the general "tone" it takes about the Catholic Church and the sarcasm used. It does not really allow an unbiased reader to draw their own conclusions. You have to understand that as Catholics (and I am sure protestants do as well with their beliefs), we hold our beliefs and practices very close to our hearts (especially the Eucharist, all the other sacraments & Mary (all of which are behind Jesus of course)). So, it really does hurt when we read these biased views from non-Catholics about what Catholics believe.

 

[xapis]

I know, I just couldn't stay away! I tried really hard though!!!

Sorry - the CARM website. Sort of hard to explain and I am too tired to take it line by line, but I am referring to the general "tone" it takes about the Catholic Church and the sarcasm used. It does not really allow an unbiased reader to draw their own conclusions. You have to understand that as Catholics (and I am sure protestants do as well with their beliefs), we hold our beliefs and practices very close to our hearts (especially the Eucharist, all the other sacraments & Mary (all of which are behind Jesus of course)). So, it really does hurt when we read these biased views from non-Catholics about what Catholics believe.

It's not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings. I only want Truth to prevail. We shouldn't let feelings play that big a role. Feelings can often stand in the way of the truth.

Regarding bias, I don't think anyone here can honestly say they're unbiased. You have to expect bias in centuries-old debate like this.

 

[cathmomof3]

It's not my intent to hurt anyone's feelings. I only want Truth to prevail. We shouldn't let feelings play that big a role. Feelings can often stand in the way of the truth.

Regarding bias, I don't think anyone here can honestly say they're unbiased. You have to expect bias in centuries-old debate like this.

True.

 

[calmcoolandelected]

This is my last post on this topic today, but I would like to note that we had our doctrines / beliefs before we had the New Testament. ..Protestants (since they don't accept Catholic "Tradition") read the bible and said "Hey here is what I think the Holy Spirit is telling me" and created doctrines from there (and thousands of different denominations, thus the Holy Spirit was telling people thousands of different things?). This is not meant to offend, it is just how I see it.

I think you have a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine. To say that folks just proclaimed that "the Holy Spirit told me this" and doctrine was created is treating our doctrine with disrespect. Many of our church fathers spent a considerable amount of time in prayer and in deep study of God's Word and that is how our doctrine was formed. Please try to understand our doctrine without preconceived ideas or misunderstandings.

Respectfully,
CC&E

 

[cathmomof3]

I think you have a misunderstanding of Protestant doctrine. To say that folks just proclaimed that "the Holy Spirit told me this" and doctrine was created is treating our doctrine with disrespect. Many of our church fathers spent a considerable amount of time in prayer and in deep study of God's Word and that is how our doctrine was formed. Please try to understand our doctrine without preconceived ideas or misunderstandings.

Respectfully,
CC&E

I realise that your church fathers did spend a lot of time in thought and prayer (as did ours) and much of your doctrine is similar to ours. I would venture to say that most of the threads on the GT forum treat Catholic doctrine with disrespect as well. I guess my point was made on how those that are not in your denom cannot possibly understand or express the beliefs of that Church.

God bless,

 

[lmnop9876]

Are you sure, that as a Catholic, you can say your church is not perfect?

there is a difference between perfect and infallible.
perfect relates the actual life and morals of the people of the church.
infallible relates to the teaching on faith and morals of the Church.

 

[Trento]

"
What Luther did for the people, Melanchthon accomplished, in his gentle and moderate way, for scholars. In their united labors they were more than a match for all the learning, skill, and material resources of the champions of Rome.

HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH*





CHAPTER VI. Schoff

Fortunately, the weakness of the empire and the want of centralization prevented the execution of the prohibition of Protestant books, except in strictly papal countries, as Bavaria and Austria. But unfortunately, the Protestants themselves, who used the utmost freedom of the press against the Papists, denied it to each other; the Lutherans to the Reformed, and both to the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians and Socinians.756 Protestant princes liked to control the press to protect themselves against popery, or the charges of robbery of church property and other attacks. The Elector John Frederick was as narrow and intolerant as Duke George on the opposite side.

Their labors were not so united were they?

 

[Trento]

"So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament." - No, Schaff did not say that. He gives credit to the early church as do I. However, like Schaff I am not Catholic, nor will I be.

Let's eliminate the complete testimony of the Fathers from history - go ahead now - find your canon. Nothing we know about Jesus comes to us that has not gone through their hands - there is absolutely no way around this.

 

[lmnop9876]

Their labors were not so united were they?

ummm... i don't think the quoted post says that all the Protestant churches were united, but that Luther and Melancthon were united in their efforts

 

[FreeinChrist]

ummm... i don't think the quoted post says that all the Protestant churches were united, but that Luther and Melancthon were united in their efforts

Correct.

I don't see that Trento is making any significant points here.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Let's eliminate the complete testimony of the Fathers from history - go ahead now - find your canon. Nothing we know about Jesus comes to us that has not gone through their hands - there is absolutely no way around this.

Are you even reading my posts?
I will make one part big:
"So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament." - No, Schaff did not say that. He gives credit to the early church as do I. However, like Schaff I am not Catholic, nor will I be.


Please tell me where I wrote to eliminate all ECF. I will add that the books that were regarded as Canon did not require the council that formalized them for most to know they were inspired...and there is no way one could say that we would have no clue as to what is inspired and what is not. You have no proof of that.


Does making a post in big letters and in bold make posts better?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

"Scripture Alone," sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. That is, everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture. No extra-scriptural doctrines are valid. If this is the case, then the Bible must state that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith and contain everything that is necessary for our faith, including the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
However, I find that the Bible states that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training. That is a long way from stating that the bible is the sole rule of faith and criterion regarding what is to be believed.
My question: Where in the Bible can I find the statement that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, criterion regarding what is to be believed and that everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture?

IgnatiusOfAntioch — Feel free to read this article for my general view on this argument:

Carm is a virulently anti-Catholic Site. Whats more the link does not address, much less answer, the questions above. Can you address these issues? Thank you for your help in illuminating these areas.

Yours in Christ

 

[icedtea]

I respectfully disagree...I have found nothing in the scriptures that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Faith.

"There is but one mediator between man and God-Christ Jesus". There go the priests..

 

[ksen]

This is my last post on this topic today, but I would like to note that we had our doctrines / beliefs before we had the New Testament.

Pardon? Which Roman Catholics were around before the New Testament was written?

Protestants (since they don't accept Catholic "Tradition") read the bible and said "Hey here is what I think the Holy Spirit is telling me" and created doctrines from there

Getting doctrine from the Bible is bad?

(and thousands of different denominations, thus the Holy Spirit was telling people thousands of different things?). This is not meant to offend, it is just how I see it.

You are incorrect, there are not "thousands of different denominations." That is an old canard thrown out by Catholics get Protestants to quiet down. The same source usually referenced for this "thousands" number also says there are hundreds of denominations within Catholicism.....should we accept that number also?

 

[cathmomof3]

"There is but one mediator between man and God-Christ Jesus". There go the priests..

Wrong - you misunderstand the priesthood. I agree that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Priest work in person Christ or on behalf of Christ

 

[cathmomof3]

Pardon? Which Roman Catholics were around before the New Testament was written?



Getting doctrine from the Bible is bad?



You are incorrect, there are not "thousands of different denominations." That is an old canard thrown out by Catholics get Protestants to quiet down. The same source usually referenced for this "thousands" number also says there are hundreds of denominations within Catholicism.....should we accept that number also?

Can you show me a "break" in our apostolic succession?
and yes, there are thousand of protestant denominations, each claiming that they are based solely on the Bible yet all of their interpretations are different.