The Bible is not a Catechetical Book!

[JesusLovesOurLady]

*Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and expose the error of Sola Scriptura and open people’s mind’s to the truth, of the Catholic Faith.*

So Sola Scriptura, where shall I begin? I guess I’ll start with my own testimony. The first time I ever read a Bible, it was my mother’s King James Bible. In addition to trying to understand the archaic english, there were a number of things I was totally lost over, I was like:

“Okay, so Abraham is in this land called Canaan, wherever that is, apparently it’s near Egypt, since he went there and visited Pharaoh in Egypt, and for some reason, he didn’t tell the Pharaoh that there was only One God! Also angels are appearing, out of nowhere, there’s no explanation as to what they are and where they came from! The Bible gives an account as of God creating all the plants and animals, but there are no accounts of angels, or devils for that matter, and what’s the deal with Satan? He just appears out of nowhere, as the serpent, tempts Adam and Eve, and then is gone. It doesn’t even explain that the serpent is Satan! Also what’s a Cherubim? I wish the Bible gave me more detail on that, because it sounds pretty cool with it’s flaming sword.”

Apologies if that sounded irreverent, but that’s kind of what I was thinking as I read Sacred Scriptures for the first time. I was totally confused! I had no idea what any of it meant! That’s one of the many key problems with Sola Scriptura, it’s not how the Bible works. The Bible is meant for people who already know the basics of the Faith taught through Sacred Tradition. Case in point, let’s turn to the supposed “proof-text” cited by Protestants to promote Sola Scriptura:

“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 DR (emphasis added)​

Sacred Scripture is profitable for the “man of God” for someone who already knows the basics of the Faith. Where did this person get the basics of the Faith? it’s got be from Sacred Scripture, because, as St. Paul just said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Sacred Scripture is meant for someone who has already become a man of God! Where did he get it? From Sacred Tradition via the Church, this where the person got the teaching to be a man of God and receive the profitabilities of Sacred Scripture.

After all, which of you Protestants would ever just hand a Bible to some random person on the street, tell them to just read it, and pray to the Holy Spirit, leave him alone completely, and never have any contact with him to help him out in anyway, and then expect him to just eventually figure out the Bible, support your ecclesial community, and show up at your congregation!?! No, Sola Scriptura is not how the Bible works!


Objection 1: No Protestant believes that one can just whip through the Bible and just know the Faith! Nor does Sola Scriptura teach that Bible clearly states that everything in it. Sola Scriptura simply states that it’s the infallible authority.

I Reply: Here’s the problem, if only the Bible is infallible, and nothing else is, how can one possibly interpret it. One memorize the Bible perfectly, verse for verse, word for word, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can learn, and be a master of Biblical Greek, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can pray the Holy Spirit all one wants, he or she will not become infallible, (and this is an even bigger problem for Calvinists who believe in total depravity. But I’m not debating with Calvinists specifically, just Protestants in general.) Sola Scriptura slams the door on that! Not to mention people -cue howls of outrage- not only among the various Protestant denominations, but even within the same denomination, will do, all-of-the-above, and will end-up coming to completely different understandings on the same verse in Scripture.


Objection 2: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, clearly says that scripture is sufficient!

I Reply: Materially sufficient, not formally sufficient. The Catholic position is that Sacred Scripture is materially sufficient, that means that the Holy Bible does contain all that is necessary for Salvation, but it is not obvious. (formally sufficient) The Holy Bible contains all the teachings of the Catholic Church including; the Papacy, the Sacraments, Devotion to Mary, Purgatory ect. ect.

The whole reason I planned this debate in the first place, is because I had started debate on Our Lady as the Living Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant, and the whole debate ultimately boiled down to, “No, no, no! You’re taking just taking all these Scripture verses and running wild with them!” Well, how do you know that? Where do you get the authority to determine what the Scripture really says, and what is just someone’s wild fantasy? That’s what we’re debating here.


Objection 3: There’s no way, those scripture passages refer to the Papacy, devotion to Mary, Purgatory, etc!

I Reply: That’s not what we’re debating here. Sola Scriptura is on trial here, not Sacred Tradition. The purpose of this debate is to show that Sacred Scripture functions with Sacred Tradition, and not Sola Scriptura. This debate is not about determining whether or not the various Catholic proof-texts, prove Catholic doctrines. Stay on topic!


Objection 4: These arguments are self-defeating, how do you know that the Catholic Church has the infallible, inerrant interpretation of Sacred Scripture!

I Reply: First of all, notice that this doesn’t solve the problem at all. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the correct interpretation of Divine Revelation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, well, then Christianity is finished! It is as Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman said, it’s either Catholicism or Atheism! If one rejects Catholicism and follows this rejection of Catholicism to it’s logical conclusion, one will become an Atheist.

Now in regards to one can know if the Catholic Church has the correct understanding of Divine Revelation? Well, I’ll approach this from the view of Catholicism vs Atheism, and see if I can find the truth. First I’ll see whether or not there is a God, I examine the arguments for and against God, I find that without God, reality doesn’t make any sense. Next, I see whether or not Jesus Christ really existed, and I find that Jesus Christ truly was an historical character. I examine the historicity of Jesus Resurrection, and I find that, in a sense, it would be easier for one to try and disprove the existence of God, than to prove that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. Finally I turn to what Jesus taught, what is His message to us? For that, I turn to the writings of the early Christians, what did they believe Our Lord’s message was? I find that they believed quite a number of things: They believed in praying for the dead; they believed in having authority figures over their communities called “bishops;” they believed in worshipping Jesus in very special way, headed by a consecrated priest, and that when that priest spoke special words over the bread and wine on the altar, that bread and wine became the really became the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ truly present under the guise of bread and wine! Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches, and thus the Catholic Church, is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ. (Albeit, is the question of the Orthodox Churches, and other Churches that accept Sacred Tradition, but that’s a whole other topic for another time.)


I’m going to be busy throughout the whole day finishing my College assignment, so I won’t be here until the evening, if that. I ask my fellow-Catholics to engage in this debate for me, while I’m away. My activity will be very slow, as I’ll be busy with College work throughout most of the month.

Ave Maria!!!

 

[Aimz]

Very informative thank you.
Be a peacemaker the only label or identity we need is JESUS CHRIST not universal not catholic not protestant not orthodox not calvinist not arminian blah blah blah.

 

[jax5434]

Is this an actual debate? If so who is debating the opposing viewpoint?
God Bless
Jax

 

[Goatee]

I like the opening post

 

[thecolorsblend]

My gripe with sola scriptura (and this was true even back in my Protestant days) was that the scriptures do not interpret themselves. Several parts of sacred scripture are pretty difficult to understand. Historians with a deep understanding of ancient history and culture can probably make better sense of a given idiom or custom or whatever.

But in anything outside of the culture(s) of ancient history, several of those things pose challenges to the modern reader.

If scripture is your first, last and only authority... well, good luck making heads or tails of entire books of the Bible. You'll need it because all you have is your individual judgment with whatever intellectual or scholastic limitations you personally possess. We've seen various evangelical interpretations of The Apocalypse of John which are almost laughable. So much for individual interpretation.

The other thing is that sola scriptura is sort of a logical dead end. If scripture is the only authority, how did the Church survive (and even prosper) without the benefit of a defined canon for all those centuries?

Another thing is that to whatever degree we've achieved universal literacy (which is up for debate), it's only occurred in the last century or so. Before that time, the majority of people were illiterate.

None of those issues are a problem for me anymore now that I'm Catholic. The Magisterium is a living authority who can guide the educated and the uneducated, the brilliant and the, ahem, not-so-brilliant alike.

The Church gave birth to the writings of the New Testament; not vice versa. As self-evident as that realization, it was probably the first step I took in my journey to Rome.

 

[Biblicist]

*Disclaimer: I am not a Theologian, and do not speak for the Catholic Church. I am merely a layman, here to evangelize, and expose the error of Sola Scriptura and open people’s mind’s to the truth, of the Catholic Faith.*

So Sola Scriptura, where shall I begin? I guess I’ll start with my own testimony. The first time I ever read a Bible, it was my mother’s King James Bible. In addition to trying to understand the archaic english, there were a number of things I was totally lost over, I was like:

For those who have been aware of the constant state of flux within Roman Catholic belief and practice over the years, they will take notice of your disclaimer which allows us to understand that you are undoubtedly unaware that there is absolutely no consistency “in the market place” with Roman Catholic theology.

Now, there are certainly doctrinal views that are held deep down in the bowels of Roman Catholic thought but these same views seem to be altered to suit the geographic and ecumenical environment that Rome finds itself within. If we were to assemble say 100 Roman Catholics from around the world in a single locality and ask them what they viewed on a given matter, there could easily be almost as many views as there are participants in the survey.

When it comes to the views of the various national Roman Catholic dioceses, the beliefs and practices of each of these national local entities seem to vary broadly from one locale to another, where what we know about the beliefs and practices of one set of Roman Catholics in a given area may not reflect the views of those Roman Catholics who are in even an adjoining region.

This problem is regularly raised by mission organisations and even Wycliffe Bible Translators who try to be even handed with all denominations, you only have to speak to these missionaries or Wycliffe translators/instructors to realise that most denominational missionary organisations had given up years ago trying to define a common set of beliefs among worldwide Roman Catholics as no such set of common views exist in reality.

Even though mainline denominations and Christians will readily admit that we exist within a theological construct that is always in a state of tension, where we regularly challenge our own views, you need to realise that Roman Catholic thought is no different. In fact, Roman Catholicism can be rightfully deemed to be a chameleon in that it will quickly unofficially redefine itself by adopting the views of local pagan practices where they sacrifice their core values to placate local religious and cultural views.

To say that Roman Catholicism reflects a common set of values and beliefs is a fallacy that is only believed by those who are less knowledgeable about Roman Catholic theology.

 

[thecolorsblend]

When it comes to the views of the various national Roman Catholic dioceses, the beliefs and practices of each of these national local entities seem to vary broadly from one locale to another, where what we know about the beliefs and practices of one set of Roman Catholics in a given area may not reflect the views of those Roman Catholics who are in even an adjoining region.

As long as they don't teach against defined dogmas, it shouldn't come as any major surprise that they don't necessarily agree with each others.

Frankly, I'm not sure what that observation of yours is meant to establish.

But, by way of contrast, there is little or no doctrinal agreement between Protestants who believe that sacred scripture says what it means and means what it says, and should be considered the sole rule of faith. One would think that could lead to doctrinal unity across the board. And yet it doesn't.

Maybe you should get your own house in order first, eh?

 

[Biblicist]

As long as they don't teach against defined dogmas, it shouldn't come as any major surprise that they don't necessarily agree with each others.

As I stated in my post, for those of us who are aware of the vast theological differences between not only Roman Catholics in general, but particularly with the theological and cultural diversities among Third World Roman Catholics in particular, we are well aware that the so called official Roman Catholic dogmas are as flexible as a piece of elastic.

Frankly, I'm not sure what that observation of yours is meant to establish.

I would have thought that this was obvious. If Roman Catholics wish to claim that the authority of their magisterium has produced a common set of values which is not found within mainstream theology, then those who hold to this particular fallacy need to understand that there are probably more variations of theological thought amongst Roman Catholics as their are among the other denominations.

The only difference between mainline denominations and grass-root Roman Catholic thought is that we are honest about this; though the common fallacy amongst every-day Roman Catholics is not one that is held by their scholars.

But, by way of contrast, there is little or no doctrinal agreement between Protestants who believe that sacred scripture says what it means and means what it says, and should be considered the sole rule of faith. One would think that could lead to doctrinal unity across the board. And yet it doesn't.

Unlike mainstream theology which regularly admits to the ongoing tensions within theological thought, you need to better understand that this is an issue which Rome also suffers under and sadly, it seems that their rank-and-file members are the only ones who belief that the views of their magisterium are rock solid.

Maybe you should get your own house in order first, eh?

Well, as the OP has proposed that his magisterium is superior to Sola Scriptura then such a claim needs to be first proven as being viable.

I suppose we could argue that we started to get the House in order with the Reformation, where the various denominations and particularly individual Christians are always endeavouring to honestly grow in our knowledge, not only of the Word, but with our walk in the Spirit.

 

[jax5434]

I Reply: That’s not what we’re debating here. Sola Scriptura is on trial here, not Sacred Tradition. The purpose of this debate is to show that Sacred Scripture functions with Sacred Tradition, and not Sola Scriptura. This debate is not about determining whether or not the various Catholic proof-texts, prove Catholic doctrines. Stay on topic!

Then it seems a pointless debate. What Catholics see as sacred scripture will always (to them) agree with their sacred tradition. How can anyone argue that? The better question and debate is "does Catholic tradition agree with New Testament teachings?"
God Bless
Jax

 

[thecolorsblend]

As I stated in my post, for those of us who are aware of the vast theological differences between not only Roman Catholics in general, but particularly with the theological and cultural diversities among Third World Roman Catholics in particular, we are well aware that the so called official Roman Catholic dogmas are as flexible as a piece of elastic.

If your objective is to point out that such diversity exists... well, congratulations. I guess. It isn't exactly breaking news that different ideas exist inside the Church though.

I would have thought that this was obvious. If Roman Catholics wish to claim that the authority of their magisterium has produced a common set of values which is not found within mainstream theology, then those who hold to this particular fallacy need to understand that there are probably more variations of theological thought amongst Roman Catholics as their are among the other denominations.

It has produced a common set of dogmas. Now, whether or not everybody abides by and lives up to them is a wholly separate issue. Catholics who unwittingly teach or act against the Church's teachings need to be corrected.

Catholics who intentionally teach or act against the Church's teachings must be corrected with a bit more zeal.

I can think of a few commonly accepted practices of Catholics in Mexico that fly in the face of Church's guidance, for example. Their inability or unwillingness to conform themselves to the Church's teachings is not, however, a failing of the Church's teachings.

The only difference between mainline denominations and grass-root Roman Catholic thought is that we are honest about this; though the common fallacy amongst every-day Roman Catholics is not one that is held by their scholars.

I couldn't disagree more. I freely admit that not everyone abides by Church teachings. But that fact doesn't change the clarity (or the authority) of the Church's teachings; it's simply a reflection upon those who cannot and will not abide by them.

Unlike mainstream theology which regularly admits to the ongoing tensions within theological thought, you need to better understand that this is an issue which Rome also suffers under and sadly, it seems that their rank-and-file members are the only ones who belief that the views of their magisterium are rock solid.

I think the laity is quite well aware of the "Cafeteria Catholic" who picks and chooses what he chooses to obey.

Well, as the OP has proposed that his magisterium is superior to Sola Scriptura then such a claim needs to be first proven as being viable.

And I would think that's beyond refutation. You've tacitly acknowledged the clarity of the Church's teachings as you've suggested that some Catholics do not abide by them. As I've said, this reflects more poorly upon the "faithful" in question than it does the Magisterium.

However, one is hard-pressed to find any doctrine at all which all Protestants everywhere agree upon. Even what I would consider to be basic issues such as the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the sacrifice on the cross, the literal bodily resurrection and other issues, there is diversity aplenty among Protestants.

Disagreement on core doctrine might well exist among some minority of Catholics but (A) they're hardly the norm (2) they're at variance with the Magisterium's clear pronouncements and (fourth) they do not somehow invalidate the authority or the necessity of the Magisterium.

I suppose we could argue that we started to get the House in order with the Reformation, where the various denominations and particularly individual Christians are always endeavouring to honestly grow in our knowledge, not only of the Word, but with our walk in the Spirit.

The net effect of that, however, has been essentially relitigating the faith with every generation. And what's peculiar is how the "reformed" faith seems to be pared back with each subsequent generation.

It looks like the Christian religion is being so whittled down by Protestants that in a few more generations I must wonder if Protestantism will even be recognizable as Christianity anymore.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Yep, just as my friends at FishEaters warned me, totally avoiding the topic of this debate! Which just goes to show how weak Sola Scriptura is, I'd advise Protestants to step-up their game, as I honestly believe Sola Scriptura is the only thing that Protestants are running on, debunk Sola Scriptura, and Protestantism comes crashing down!

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Then it seems a pointless debate. What Catholics see as sacred scripture will always (to them) agree with their sacred tradition. How can anyone argue that? The better question and debate is "does Catholic tradition agree with New Testament teachings?"
God Bless
Jax

Yes, because Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the Authentic Teachings of Jesus Christ! Don't agree with that, prove that Scritpure can stand on it's own without any tradition! Sola Scriptura means "Scripture alone" not "Scripture without Tradition" so prove that Scripture can stand on it's own!

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Very informative thank you.
Be a peacemaker the only label or identity we need is JESUS CHRIST not universal not catholic not protestant not orthodox not calvinist not arminian blah blah blah.

Interesting, I actually had similar discussion on FishEaters awhile a back, you can check it out here, if you're interested: https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=79528

I'd like to call myself a Christian in Communion with Rome, but sadly, things aren't as simple as we'd like them to be.

 

[jax5434]

You seem to be saying that Sola Scriptura is insufficient because by themselves the scriptures do not support Catholic tradition. Therefore one must interpret scripture thru tradition in order to obtain the proper understanding of scripture.
Is my understanding of your contention correct? There is no point in discussion unless we all understand what the discussion is about.
God Bless
Jax

 

[jax5434]

I apologize, I missed your last reply.
If I needed to support Catholic traditions I would agree with your position. Since I do not I find Sola Scriptura to be more than adequate for salvation. What is essential to Salvation that you believe can not be found in scripture alone?
Incidentally, from my understanding I do not consider this a Salvation issue. Anyone who can sincerely make the confession of Romans 10:9 is saved. Regardless of any other traditions.
God Bless
Jax

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

You seem to be saying that Sola Scriptura is insufficient because by themselves the scriptures do not support Catholic tradition. Therefore one must interpret scripture thru tradition in order to obtain the proper understanding of scripture.
Is my understanding of your contention correct? There is no point in discussion unless we all understand what the discussion is about.
God Bless
Jax

No, I'm saying that Scriptures can't stand up by themselves because there is no clear interpretation of them, and no authority to justify said interpretation of them.

I think my Reply to Objection 1, sums it up:

I Reply: Here’s the problem, if only the Bible is infallible, and nothing else is, how can one possibly interpret it. One memorize the Bible perfectly, verse for verse, word for word, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can learn, and be a master of Biblical Greek, that doesn’t make one infallible. One can pray the Holy Spirit all one wants, he or she will not become infallible, (and this is an even bigger problem for Calvinists who believe in total depravity. But I’m not debating with Calvinists specifically, just Protestants in general.) Sola Scriptura slams the door on that! Not to mention people -cue howls of outrage- not only among the various Protestant denominations, but even within the same denomination, will do, all-of-the-above, and will end-up coming to completely different understandings on the same verse in Scripture.

And also, from Objection 2:

The whole reason I planned this debate in the first place, is because I had started debate on Our Lady as the Living Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant, and the whole debate ultimately boiled down to, “No, no, no! You’re taking just taking all these Scripture verses and running wild with them!” Well, how do you know that? Where do you get the authority to determine what the Scripture really says, and what is just someone’s wild fantasy? That’s what we’re debating here.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I apologize, I missed your last reply.
If I needed to support Catholic traditions I would agree with your position. Since I do not I find Sola Scriptura to be more than adequate for salvation. What is essential to Salvation that you believe can not be found in scripture alone?
Incidentally, from my understanding I do not consider this a Salvation issue. Anyone who can sincerely make the confession of Romans 10:9 is saved. Regardless of any other traditions.
God Bless
Jax

Interesting, then I guess we don't the Bible than, since all one needs to do is confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in His Resurrection!

After all, the "proof-text" speaks of the Scripture being needed for good works, but we don't need good works in order to be saved. So throw out your Bible, it's worthless, and may even be an occasion of sin as it says it's needed for good works, and we don't need good works in order to be saved!

 

[jax5434]

You also need to know how to live the Christian Life while you're here. Which is what most of the New Testament is about. But in point of fact you are correct. Confessing Jesus as Lord is all you need for salvation.

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Where in this do you see a claim that "good works" are required?
God Bless
Jax

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

You also need to know how to live the Christian Life while you're here. Which is what most of the New Testament is about. But in point of fact you are correct. Confessing Jesus as Lord is all you need for salvation.

9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Where in this do you see a claim that "good works" are required?
God Bless
Jax

I'm talking about this passage:

“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 DR (emphasis added)
​

St. Paul says the purpose of scripture is to teach us how to perform "every good work." Yet you say good works aren't necessary, how do you explain that? And getting back to the topic of this debate, how do you justify your explanation?

I've gotta go now, it's Vespers hour, and I have Rosary Novena to do.
I'll be back later...

 

[jax5434]

I'm talking about this passage:

“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 DR (emphasis added)
​

St. Paul says the purpose of scripture is to teach us how to perform "every good work." Yet you say good works aren't necessary, how do you explain that? And getting back to the topic of this debate, how do you justify your explanation?

I've gotta go now, it's Vespers hour, and I have Rosary Novena to do.
I'll be back later...

I said works are not necessary to salvation.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8-9.

“Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” – Romans 3:30.

Those who are saved will produce works as a result of their salvation. That's why James says "faith without works is dead".

I've got go for now. I'll check back tomorrow pm. Have a good evening.
God Bless
Jax