Sola Scriptura defined....

[Major1]

Different definitions have been offered by different people. Many of this definitions contradict one another.

True.

Not true.

This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again.

1 Timothy 3 (where I assume this assertion of yours comes from) says bishops are to be the husband of only one wife. Since most Christians were converts at the time St. Paul wrote to Timothy, the raw material the Church had to work with would've mostly been married men.

Separately, the Church allows married clergy in the Eastern Rites. As a matter of discipline (eg, not dogma), married clergy are typically not allowed in the Roman Rite. But even there exceptions do exist.

Oy.

Here we go again. Have the mentally infirm sinned? Have infants sinned? Did Our Lord sin? After all, the Bible says "all" have sinned, right?

According to the scriptures, how did Elijah die?

Pssst. Purgatory isn't a second chance.

Indeed it does.

The Catholic Church interprets 1 Corinthians 3:5 as a description of the form, effect and purpose of Purgatory. Now, you might disagree that the passage should be interpreted in that way. But that passage means something. And, more to the point, Purgatory is how the Church interprets it.

According to you. But a casual glance around CF shows members who believe that it means that a given religious belief be not forbidden or disproven by scripture. Others believe that scripture can and should cooperate with some form of tradition (even Sacred Tradition).

As with so much else in Protestantism, nobody agrees on what sola scriptura means. In fact, all anybody seems to know for sure is that Protestant apparently love Latin terminology nearly as much as Catholics.

Ironically, scripture doesn't explicitly teach sola scriptura... which, perhaps, results in strange man-made traditions like sola scriptura.

Try reading Song Of Solomon or Revelation to a four year old some time. Let me know how it goes.

You said to me............
"This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again."

Do yourself a real favor my friend and find someone else to bully and threaten because you are wasting your time and efforts on me.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You said to me............
"This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again."

Yes that's true.

Do yourself a real favor my friend and find someone else to bully and threaten because you are wasting your time and efforts on me.

Don't tell me what I do and don't believe and there won't be any problem.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, however it must be considered in the "context" of where the word is found. In this case it is the Bible and the referrance is to the men that Jesus commissioned to be His spokesmen after He left.

Yes, no disagreement there.... the point is that many since the first century have claimed authority,
without
having authority.
The 'apostles' or others they claim to have authority from OR as if supported by them, may be and perhaps are sent ones, just not sent with Biblical Authority.

 

[Major1]

Yes that's true.

Don't tell me what I do and don't believe and there won't be any problem.

There is no problem at all. Never was! Never will be as I told you, I am not the one to try and intimidate.

By the way, your challenge to me seems to stem from..............

I said........................
"and Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word."

To that you said..................
Not true.

Then I said................
"It is just that simple my friend."

From that we get this THREAT from you to me............
"This is the only time I will warn you. Do not presume to tell me what I do and don't believe again."

Now IF you accepted the Scriptures as the Word of God, why then do you believe in.............
1). Purgatory?
2). Assumption of Mary?
3). Mary was sinless?
4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?
5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.
6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.
7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.
8). Why do you bow down to statue?
9). The Rosary?
10). Praying to the dead?

Not a one of those is found in the Scriptures. NO NOT ONE!

Then that being a fact, how can you claim that you accepted the Bible as God's Word and then get angry when it is pointed out to you??????

 

[redleghunter]

Good Day,

....ask away


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

In Him,

Bill

I think it important to also show the WCF which defines Sola Scriptura:

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

[...]

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]

X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]

Westminster Confession of Faith (footnotes at link)

 

[thecolorsblend]

By the way, your challenge to me seems to stem from..............

Wow, three pages of discussion and we haven't gotten you there yet.

Okay...

you are a Catholic and Catholics do not accept the Scriptures as God's Word.

It is just that simple my friend.

This is the relevant text. You presumed to know what I believe. Don't do that.

Now IF you accepted the Scriptures as the Word of God, why then do you believe in.............

1). Purgatory?

I addressed this in a previous post.

2). Assumption of Mary?

I addressed this in a previous post. Tried to anyway but you never gave a meaningful response to that point.

3). Mary was sinless?

4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?

5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.

Um, you already mentioned this back in #2.

6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.

I addressed this in a previous post.

7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.

I assume this question stems from St. Matthew 23:8–10. So here's a question for you: Does this apparent prohibition from St. Matthew 23 include one's biological father?

If it does include one's biological father, how can we possibly fully obey the commandment to honor our father and mother?

If it doesn't include one's biological father, well, we've identified one exception to that rule. But are there more?

Acts 7:2- St. Stephen speaks of "father Abraham". Was this disobeying Our Lord?

Romans 9:10- St. Paul speaks of "father Isaac". Was this disobeying Our Lord?

St. John 6:31- Our Lord Himself speaks of "our fathers" who ate manna in the desert. Was He disobeying Himself?

8). Why do you bow down to statue?

I don't think I've ever actually done this, tbh.

9). The Rosary?

10). Praying to the dead?

As I've said in previous exchanges with you, the Catholic Church believes in the Communion of the Saints.

Not a one of those is found in the Scriptures. NO NOT ONE!

Nonsense, the Hail Mary is taken almost entirely from sacred scripture.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

One of the most parroted supposed silly issues with the Historical Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura is different understanding of scripture and because of that some how a name it claim it authoritative Church to resolve those types of issues... reminder SS does not address interpretations so it on it's face is a strawman, unless you can prove primary source from history showing other wise and show that you have understood them correctly... if you can not then please do not continue to misrepresent the doctrine.

As to the understanding of scripture that issue is real indeed, but it is nothing new in the church historically:

To ignore this fact and attempt to sweep it under the rug by some name it claim it authoritative back room group of fallible men is hiding your head in the sand

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.

 

[DeaconDean]

Good Day,

One of the most parroted supposed silly issues with the Historical Christian doctrine of Sola Scriptura is different understanding of scripture and because of that some how a name it claim it authoritative Church to resolve those types of issues... reminder SS does not address interpretations so it on it's face is a strawman, unless you can prove primary source from history showing other wise and show that you have understood them correctly... if you can not then please do not continue to misrepresent the doctrine.

As to the understanding of scripture that issue is real indeed, but it is nothing new in the church historically:

To ignore this fact and attempt to sweep it under the rug by some name it claim it authoritative back room group of fallible men is hiding your head in the sand

Agreed.

All I need to know for salvation and sanctification is contained in the scriptures themselves.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Major1]

Wow, three pages of discussion and we haven't gotten you there yet.

Okay...

This is the relevant text. You presumed to know what I believe. Don't do that.



I addressed this in a previous post.

I addressed this in a previous post. Tried to anyway but you never gave a meaningful response to that point.

So you did not answer the question at all did you????

What I do know comes from what others actually say and in your case do not say.

So the question still stands........................

Now IF you or any other Catholic believer accepted the Scriptures as the Word of God, why then do you believe in.............
1). Purgatory?
2). Assumption of Mary?
3). Mary was sinless?
4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?
5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.
6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.
7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.
8). Why do you bow down to statue?
9). The Rosary?
10). Praying to the dead?

Not a one of those is found in the Scriptures. NO NOT ONE!

Then that being a fact, how can you claim that you accepted the Bible as God's Word and then get angry when the obvious is pointed out to you??????

Why do you not respond to that question?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Agreed.

All I need to know for salvation and sanctification is contained in the scriptures themselves.

God Bless

Till all are one.

This is quite true and also quite a difficulty for Catholics, who maintain that all they need to know for salvation and sanctification is not contained in scripture, but is contained in the evolving dogmas of their church.

 

[1watchman]

Right on, bbbbbbbb, and all the religious ideas of men is affront to our God.

 

[DeaconDean]

1). Purgatory?
2). Assumption of Mary?
3). Mary was sinless?
4). Mary was a perpetual virgin?
5). Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven.
6). Bishops are not allowed to marry.
7). Why do you call a man your FATHER'.
8). Why do you bow down to statue?
9). Why do you bow down to statue?
10). Why do you bow down to statue?

I want to know where any of the above is relative to salvation?

Will a belief/unbelief in "purgatory" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Assumption of Mary" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was sinless" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was a perpetual virgin" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Bishops are not allowed to marry" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you call a man your FATHER'" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will believing in or not believing in any of the above save or condemn me?

Fact is, the question has been answered.

All I need to know for salvation, and all I need to know for sanctification is contained in the Holy Writ.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Major1]

I want to know where any of the above is relative to salvation?

Will a belief/unbelief in "purgatory" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Assumption of Mary" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was sinless" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary was a perpetual virgin" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Mary did not die but was assumed into heaven" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Bishops are not allowed to marry" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you call a man your FATHER'" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will a belief/unbelief in "Why do you bow down to statue" save/condemn me?

Will believing in or not believing in any of the above save or condemn me?

Fact is, the question has been answered.

All I need to know for salvation, and all I need to know for sanctification is contained in the Holy Writ.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Completely correct!!!!

All of those are MAN-Made dogmas and not a single one is found in the Scriptures.

That is and always has been the argument and rift between the RCC and Protestant church.

 

[Meowzltov]

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.

Bill, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the basics for salvation are contained within the Bible, which is why we can acknowledge Protestants as true Christians. So why aren't Catholics sola scriptura? Let me offer my own definition:

Sola scriptura: the idea that the bible is the ONLY INFALLIBLE authority for doctrine and morals, and further, is the ONLY authority of any kind for MAJOR doctrines of the church. Thus, someone who is sola scriptura would never say it is mandatory for a Christian to believe in the assumption of Mary, while a Catholic would, because a Catholic acknowledges that the Church is also a source of infallible authority, and that Sacred Tradition can be a source of major doctrine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Bill, even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the basics for salvation are contained within the Bible, which is why we can acknowledge Protestants as true Christians. So why aren't Catholics sola scriptura? Let me offer my own definition:

Sola scriptura: the idea that the bible is the ONLY INFALLIBLE authority for doctrine and morals, and further, is the ONLY authority of any kind for MAJOR doctrines of the church. Thus, someone who is sola scriptura would never say it is mandatory for a Christian to believe in the assumption of Mary, while a Catholic would, because a Catholic acknowledges that the Church is also a source of infallible authority, and that Sacred Tradition can be a source of major doctrine.

Your difficulty, of course, is that your definition of "church" is much too narrow. You exclude everyone outside of your particular denomination and its dogmas.

 

[Meowzltov]

Your difficulty, of course, is that your definition of "church" is much too narrow. You exclude everyone outside of your particular denomination and its dogmas.

Not true!!!!! We include all baptized believers as part of the Church. CCC 838

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not true!!!!! We include all baptized believers as part of the Church. CCC 838

Partially true. You yourself in your previous post excluded everyone who does not hold that the assumption of Mary is an infallible dogma. The fact is that your denomination holds outsiders away from it by calling them "separated brethren" when, in actual, fact it is your denomination which is separated. It has proclaimed that it is an infallible truth that must be believed in order to be saved that Mary was conceived without sin, is perpetually sinless, is perpetually a virgin, and was assumed directly into heaven (where she now reigns as Queen of Heaven and intercedes for her people - those who have placed their faith in her).

 

[Meowzltov]

You yourself in your previous post excluded everyone who does not hold that the assumption of Mary is an infallible dogma.

This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Major1]

This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

I say this with all respect due to you as it seems to me that you are a wonderful person and always have thoughtful words to say.

However, I am always amazed that when a Catholic believer is shown the error of their understanding, the fall back response is ............" You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. "

Please try to understand that we who challenge your comments and the RCC dogmas DO IN FACT understand how Catholic teaching works which is why we are not Catholic anymore.

It is just this simple. You/we/me read and understand the Scriptures as the Word of God and obey them......OR we read and understand the teachings of men and obey them.

There is NO middle ground on this! It is one or it is the other but it can not be both or a combination of both because the acceptance of the word and teachings of men automatically makes you guilty of rejecting the Scriptures as the Word of God.

You see, you believe that the assumption of Mary is reality. The problem however is that it is not found anywhere in the Bible neither is it suggested anywhere in the Bible. Therefore you have accepted the teachings of men over the Word of God.

The same understanding would be applied to Mary having no sin.
The same would apply to Mary be a perpetual virgin.
The same would apply to Bishops not being married.
The same would apply to the Rosary.
The same would apply to making the sign of the cross.
The same would apply to baptizing babies so that can be saved.

The list goes on and on and on but the bottom line always come back to the same theology. It is not a matter of understand Catholic theology as we in fact understand it completely! The bottom line is that we do not accept it at all bcause none of what I listed and more than just them can not be found in the Bible!

YOU believe mans word and teaching more than YOU do God's Word and teaching and we are just the opposite.

Be well and may God bless!

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is binding on Catholics. It is not binding on all Christians. You do not understand how Catholic teaching works on this matter. Again, we accept all baptized believers as true Christians who have a certain, albeit imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Herein lies the rub. The Catholic Church never at any time has ever told anyone that they are saved, merely that they might be saved. In its acceptance of baptized individuals as being Christians it does not at all acknowledge them as being saved and on their way to heaven, or even Purgatory. It merely means that they could go to heaven. However, in order to go to heaven, according to the Catholic Church, one must believe the Four Marian Dogmas. It is a mortal sin to reject them. Thus, in order for a Protestant or and Eastern Orthodox Christian to even hope to go to heaven, according to the Catholic Church, they must conform their belief system to that of the Catholic Church.

The odd exception to this whole structure of teaching is "ignorance". If a Protestant, for example, is ignorant of Catholic teaching and dogma then they could be saved. Given the fact that we Protestants here at CF are continually reminded that we do not understand Catholicism, I would say there is a much higher probability of Protestants being saved than knowledgeable Catholics such as yourself.