Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[MoreCoffee]

What I find interesting about your post #2058 is that is basically the protestant position.

Naturally I approve of post #2058. It is, after all, part of one of the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If it looks protestant to you perhaps you are more Catholic than you may have realised.

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE
I. Christ—The Unique Word of Sacred Scripture
101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: “Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men.”63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64 (65, 2763, 426-429)

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66 (1100, 1184, 1378)

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God.”67 “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”68

II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”69

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72 (702)

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 (128, 368)

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81). (81)

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (90)

 

[TheDag]

Naturally I approve of post #2058. It is, after all, part of one of the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If it looks protestant to you perhaps you are more Catholic than you may have realised.

I am not catholic and never will be just like I will never have been anglican or lutheran or salvaion army or pentecostal. I am a christian and always will be.

I wasn't suggesting you would disagree with your own post but you keep saying SS is wrong yet what you said is SS. So what you need to do now is decide if you are going to be consistent in agreeing with it or remain with belief that has double standards. I reckon you have the view you do because you just didn't properly understand what the belief was. It is like when a archbishop appeared on a tv show here and people were shocked when he said he was submitting to the host of the show. People including the host were shocked. This happened because people don't really understand what submission is.

Can't remember if it was you or a different poster who said protestants don't have discipline in the church because of SS. Well that is a load of rubbish. I have been in churches where they have asked people to leave if they did not stop certain practices. It wasn't that they had an issue with that practice but it was what was being said was unbiblical. There are protestant denominations who also have ex-communication. So it is there. Churches, including the RCC, don't like using it these days due to the media storm it can bring down. Just like as I said repeat child sex offenders have not been removed by the RCC amongst others. So it is not anything new.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not catholic and never will be just like I will never have been anglican or lutheran or salvaion army or pentecostal. I am a christian and always will be.

Well, it is good to hear that you are a Christian but so are Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Salvation Army people.

 

[MoreCoffee]

but you keep saying SS is wrong yet what you said is SS

I say that SS is incomplete and that is why I gave the more fulsome explanation that the Catechism of the Catholic Church provides.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon you have the view you do because you just didn't properly understand what the belief was.

I've been using the definition of SS that Standing Up cut and pasted from Wikipedia. He said it was what he believes. Do you believe it too? It says "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

 

[thecolorsblend]

This in no way addresses what I said. So not sure why you are saying it.

You make it sound like Luther was an innocent victim, his only problem was that he loved the Church too much but a bunch of meanie-head Catholics chased him out. Sorry, no, that's in absolute defiance of history.

If they repeatedly offend they are to be kicked out of the church is part of it.

Wow, really? Show me chapter and verse for that method of dealing with sex-offenders please.

Certainly being aware of it and keeping priests in place where they have access to more children is wrong. What is the RCC teaching on this?

For quite a few decades there, the Church followed the advice of psychologists about this. So did the government, schools and other institutions. The prevailing scientific consensus at that time was a multi-step process that went a little something like the following:

01- Confront the guilty party.
02- Shame the you-know-what out of him.
03- Make him promise to never do this again.
04- Quietly relocate him.

The reason for this was because less was understood about molestation back then than is understood today. Back then the remedy for this was understood to be more therapeutic in nature. Now we know better.

For an institution that's so often accused by atheists and other hostile organizations of being "anti-science", the Church stuck close to the scientific understanding of this problem for a lot of years and is now getting pilloried for it.

Because of that, any priest who is accused of molestation these days faces far more draconian policies. Clearly following the advice of the scientific community is a losing proposition so the Church has installed procedures to

Either way you chose not to believe the best. You stated you chose to interpret it as rude and aggressive. One of those as I said had absolutely no justification at all. The other possible justification but if you chose to believe the best then you would not have chosen that. A better way would have been to say That seems a bit rude to me could you rephrase or would you mind taking a bit more care next time.

There's no need to put words in my mouth. My exact words will suffice quite nicely.

I don't know you. You don't know me. I interpret that statement as rude and aggressive. That may not be what you intended but that's how I'm interpreting it.

My promise to you is this: If you shoot your mouth off to me again, I'll report your post to a mod. I usually try to be polite and courteous. Certainly that is how I've addressed you. I expect the same in return. It isn't too much to ask, sir.

I did not "choose" anything. I'm not asking for an explanation. Heck, I'm not even asking for an apology. All I've done is say (A) I interpreted those words as hostile and (B) don't do it again or else I'll take the matter up with a mod. Your defensiveness about this makes me think I perhaps had the right idea that you were trying to be inflammatory. Please don't let it happen again.

Which is why the catholics make up baptisms that do not exist to get around it. Protestants like the orthodox leave it to God.

This right here. Our conversation is going nowhere and accomplishing nothing. Any reply I make hence will inevitably be met with some retort which about as edifying as our dialogue thus far -- which is to say not very. Further discussion with you gains neither of us anything.

So I'm done with you.

However, as a conciliatory gesture, I've decided not to report your original reply for the rudeness you showed. For now anyway. My hope is you take that as a show of good faith. Bye bye.

 

[Rick Otto]

I see, is the text of your post all in bold?

You immediately made her point.
I had been tempted to think her a bit harsh, but you vanquished that temptation swiftly and thoroughly.

 

[Rick Otto]

[QUOTE="LittleLambofJesus, ; Good post.

Him saying the bible is insufficient is not good.
Like as if the poll doesn't exist or count, either.
What's going on here? Don't make me come over there.

 

[Rick Otto]

As saint Paul said "All scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be upright. This is how someone who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good work." Holy Scripture is useful for the purposes noted in the words of saint Paulyet it is not intended to self interpret nor is it intended to administer discipline nor decide doctrine even though its teaching sets boundaries for doctrine.

I'm listening. Continue with that explanation.

How can something that sets the boundaries of doctrine, be insufficient to decide doctrine ? Doesn't a description of boundaries include beginning, middle, and end?

 

[Rick Otto]

It's Roman Catholicism that has proclaimed Holy Scripture to be inadequate...but none of its members can explain why it is.

That's why requests for a simple explanation of that thinking here on CF has been repeatedly met with silence or else comments like "It's obvious" or "The Bible doesn't absolutely say that something else might not be just as good."

And the magesterium was created.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
(Proverbs 3:5 NRSV)

Yes. "Trust in the LORD. . ." not the pope; not the church fathers. . .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes. "Trust in the LORD. . ." not the pope; not the church fathers. . .

And do not lean on your own understanding says the proverb. If it is "me and God" will popes, church councils, wise counsellors, and whatever else will be bypassed?

 

[TheDag]

For quite a few decades there, the Church followed the advice of psychologists about this. So did the government, schools and other institutions. The prevailing scientific consensus at that time was a multi-step process that went a little something like the following:

01- Confront the guilty party.
02- Shame the you-know-what out of him.
03- Make him promise to never do this again.
04- Quietly relocate him.

The reason for this was because less was understood about molestation back then than is understood today. Back then the remedy for this was understood to be more therapeutic in nature. Now we know better.

For an institution that's so often accused by atheists and other hostile organizations of being "anti-science", the Church stuck close to the scientific understanding of this problem for a lot of years and is now getting pilloried for it.

Because of that, any priest who is accused of molestation these days faces far more draconian policies. Clearly following the advice of the scientific community is a losing proposition so the Church has installed procedures to

First of all the past practice did not involve shaming the you know what out of him. It was swept under the carpet with pay off to the victim. I am well aware that it was the reccomended way of dealing with pedophiles. However anyone who understands science knows that it gives information based on available data at the time. So thirty years ago when they realised it was not the correct approach and changed the reccomendations and all these other groups you mentioned changed why does the RCC still do things the same way?
The other factor is that when that solution was made in the past it only took into consideration the offender and totally ignored the victim. If the church wants to stand and have a say when it comes to morals then they need to keep themselves to a higher standard. They need to adhere to God's standards. Same as the church frequently marries unbelievers and include promises to God which the people don't believe in and then wants to have the right to speak on marriage! No wonder people aren't interested in listening.

Wow, really? Show me chapter and verse for that method of dealing with sex-offenders please.

Guess you should read your bible. When a guy in my bible study group said if a person is catholic it means they have never read the bible I corrected him and told him he should not be trying to drag down God's kingdom. I hope I am not wrong.

This right here. Our conversation is going nowhere and accomplishing nothing. Any reply I make hence will inevitably be met with some retort which about as edifying as our dialogue thus far -- which is to say not very. Further discussion with you gains neither of us anything.

ok maybe you are the one and only catholic in the world who can give a justifiable explanation that stands up to scrutiny. The approach of the orthodox leaves it in God's hands. They don't feel a need to explain every little detail. There is absolutely no evidence or justification for believing in baptism of blood or baptism by desire. I've had this discussion with plenty of catholics in the past and that is why I call it a man made doctrine. Of course I don't believe any church is perfect and has it 100% correct.

 

[TheDag]

You make it sound like Luther was an innocent victim, his only problem was that he loved the Church too much but a bunch of meanie-head Catholics chased him out. Sorry, no, that's in absolute defiance of history.

Never said any such thing. So perhaps you can take your own advice and use my words rather than putting words in my mouth! Once again no positions that contain double standards please. History shows that the catholic church were selling indulgances. History shows it was TRADITION to post things like that for debate. History shows a debate is what was called for but instead he was attacked and kicked out of the church. I emphasised tradition since you keep talking about how important it is in understanding. Same applies to this.

However, as a conciliatory gesture, I've decided not to report your original reply for the rudeness you showed. For now anyway. My hope is you take that as a show of good faith. Bye bye.

In other words anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you will be ignored. Then you wonder why you can not get anywhere in a discussion! Any report of the post now would be in breach of forum rules. Guess you didn't read those too closely. It's called vindictive reporting of posts. Essentially you don't like being called out on your rudeness. You call it a concilatory gesture but having said you would not report it you now show that you were holding onto it as a threat.

I did not "choose" anything. I'm not asking for an explanation. Heck, I'm not even asking for an apology. All I've done is say (A) I interpreted those words as hostile and (B) don't do it again or else I'll take the matter up with a mod. Your defensiveness about this makes me think I perhaps had the right idea that you were trying to be inflammatory. Please don't let it happen again.

Interesting admission you make here. You admit that however one chooses to interpret something makes it true. So I guess we don't need the pope or magesterium to tell us anything because you have just said if a person says something it is true. It was a straight talking comment. You just don't like the fact I pointed out your rudeness when you were having a go at people for possibly being rude.

 

[Rick Otto]

Lean on the bible's understanding, not the magesterium's understanding of the bible.

 

[TheDag]

I've been using the definition of SS that Standing Up cut and pasted from Wikipedia. He said it was what he believes. Do you believe it too? It says "the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice".

Yes. However it does not mean that one does not use other sources to help understand its meaning which is what people who oppose SS seem to think and is what you have indicated. Even catholic leaders who are involved in voting for a new pope say they don't always get it right. Yet that is not the official belief. Of course one looks at the traditions/culture of the day. As well as what was happening. Who was being written to. Why were they being written to? If the RCC does have all truth why do they not share it? What are the questions Paul was asked? They form part of the context after all. Add in to that that with dead language like ancient greek new discoveries are being made about the language that gives better understanding. What we don't do is say other things are equal to scripture. It does not exclude other things from being used. Supreme authority means just that. If there is a contradiction then the bible is the supreme authority.

Well, it is good to hear that you are a Christian but so are Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Salvation Army people.

Yes that was my point. We are all christian and I don't label myself as a particular denomination (unless I want to make a joke about silly practices in the denomination I attend at the time!) We would all be better off calling ourselves christian.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes that was my point. We are all christian and I don't label myself as a particular denomination (unless I want to make a joke about silly practices in the denomination I attend at the time!)

Is the meeting you attend so bad?

 

[Albion]

And the magesterium was created.

Yes, although I've yet to see anyone ever say that "X is what the magisterium agrees to," or that the magisterium was polled. It's good enough merely to mention the magesterium, apparently.

And if we think about it, why would that be surprising, considering the ease with which "The church has always believed...." is said, even when it's a matter of record that the church has NOT always believed (whatever it is)?

 

[Standing Up]

I reckon that by post 100 we already had the decision on the issue raised in this thread. The bible is not sufficient.

Sufficient for what?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sufficient for what?

Sufficient to bear the burden that your definition of SS puts on it.