Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

[Albion]

Since I reject Sola Scriptura and accept the fact that the bible is not the only source of knowledge concerning God, there's nowhere else for you to go.

I don't mean to get into the dispute that is the focus of your post here, but it should be said at some point that Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is "the only source of knowledge concerning God." Not just like that. The claim is that it is the only source for establishing essential doctrine, and then to understand it may also require reason and a knowledge of church history.

Lastly, I don't "want" II Timothy 3:16 to say anything other than what the plain reading of the text states. You stated that the bible doesn't speak about itself and that single verse crushes that idea to powder.

Of course it does speak about itself, as for instance when it explains that the origin of Holy Scripture is God inspiring the writers of these books.

 

[Clete]

I don't mean to get into the dispute that is the focus of your post here, but it should be said at some point that Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is "the only source of knowledge concerning God." Not just like that. The claim is that it is the only source for establishing essential doctrine, and then to understand it may also require reason and a knowledge of church history.

Good point!

However, Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, is it not? I've never found anyone who can establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura biblically. It is therefore a self-defeating proposition and I reject it on that basis.

Further, there was plenty of good and correct doctrine long before there was a bible. There is a very great deal that we can know with certainty about God by His creation alone without any input from the bible whatsoever.

Having said that, there is no such thing as a contradictory truth and the bible is the truth. As such, all true doctrine does not contradict the bible nor does the bible contradict reality.

Of course it does speak about itself, as for instance when it explains that the origin of Holy Scripture is God inspiring the writers of these books.

Exactly!

 

[Albion]

Good point!

However, Sola Scriptura is a doctrine, is it not? I've never found anyone who can establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura biblically. It is therefore a self-defeating proposition and I reject it on that basis.

I look at it this way--

The Bible itself repeatedly refers to the Bible, the word of God, as of supreme worth. If it IS indeed the word of God (which hardly any Christian denomination disputes), it HAS to be supreme. What can 'beat' the authority of God himself??

The issue, therefore, really concerns whether or not something else is the EQUAL of God's revealed word, and we have the various Catholic churches saying that, yes, there is.

That is called either Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. However, the Bible doesn't make mention of such a thing by any name and the theory that is advanced by those church bodies in support of Sacred Tradition is, in most cases, not adhered to when a new doctrine is created and attributed to Sacred or Holy Tradition.

Further, there was plenty of good and correct doctrine long before there was a bible. There is a very great deal that we can know with certainty about God by His creation alone without any input from the bible whatsoever.

Is it supported by the Bible or not? If so, there is hardly an issue. Oral transmission of the Apostolic faith is not denied.

 

[prodromos]

Are you suggesting that the bible isn't a collection of scripture?

The only Scripture that Timothy could have possibly known from his youth is the Greek Septuagint, so Paul's letter to Timothy can only refer to the Old Testament.

 

[Clete]

I look at it this way--

The Bible itself repeatedly refers to the Bible, the word of God, as of supreme worth. If it IS indeed the word of God (which hardly any Christian denomination disputes), it HAS to be supreme. What can 'beat' the authority of God himself??

The issue, therefore, really concerns whether or not something else is the EQUAL of God's revealed word, and we have the various Catholic churches saying that, yes, there is.

That is called either Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition. However, the Bible doesn't make mention of such a thing by any name and the theory that is advanced by those church bodies in support of Sacred Tradition is, in most cases, not adhered to when a new doctrine is created and attributed to Sacred or Holy Tradition.

I agree with all of this but sola scriptura goes a bit further than merely rejecting tradition or Papal authority. It says the the bible is the SOLE source of all doctrinal truth.

Is it supported by the Bible or not? If so, there is hardly an issue.

Perhaps not with you personally but there is an issue with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's quite a bit more stringent that you seem to be implying. It isn't that doctrine is merely supported by scripture but that the scripture itself is THE source of doctrinal truth. Sola Scriptura would permit other sources of truth to support truths found in scripture but insists that right doctrine begins with scripture and nothing else.

Oral transmission of the Apostolic faith is not denied.

Before the New Testament existed perhaps but oral transmission of the Christian faith is rejected by Sola Scriptura for today. If you didn't get your doctrine directly from the bible, sola scriptura holds that doctrine as suspect at best and as such is itself unbiblical because we know that people can not only know right from wrong without the bible but can perform it (Romans 1 & 2).

In fact, it seems to me that Romans 1 directly contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when it says...

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It's not as if God's creation has changed or that mankind is any less capable of understanding it's testimony, so how can the doctrine survive even that single passage?

Clete

 

[Clete]

The only Scripture that Timothy could have possibly known from his youth is the Greek Septuagint, so Paul's letter to Timothy can only refer to the Old Testament.

That is not relevant!

That is, unless it is your intention to imply that only the Old Testament (and more specifically the Greek translation of it ) is all that counts as scripture.

I'll ask you directly....

Is the New Testament scripture, yes or no?

 

[Albion]

I agree with all of this but sola scriptura goes a bit further than merely rejecting tradition or Papal authority. It says the the bible is the SOLE source of all doctrinal truth.

I don't see the problem.

Perhaps not with you personally but there is an issue with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's quite a bit more stringent that you seem to be implying. It isn't that doctrine is merely supported by scripture but that the scripture itself is THE source of doctrinal truth.

Still don't see an issue.

Sola Scriptura would permit other sources of truth to support truths found in scripture but insists that right doctrine begins with scripture and nothing else.

Ah, that's the error. SS does not permit other sources of truth to define a doctrine. It merely "permits" other factors to interpret the meaning of that which is from the authority.

Before the New Testament existed perhaps but oral transmission of the Christian faith is rejected by Sola Scriptura for today.

I don't know why anyone would say that. We here are doing essentially that every time we explain some Bible verse to a questioner. None of that means we ourselves are the origin of the doctrine.

If you didn't get your doctrine directly from the bible, sola scriptura holds that doctrine as suspect at best...

I don't think so. If you, for example, get it from a theologian or a church council and the declaration made there accords with the Bible, it's the Bible that is the authority. Note, for instance, that Scripture and nothing else is cited in the the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed.

...and as such is itself unbiblical because we know that people can not only know right from wrong without the bible but can perform it (Romans 1 & 2).

In fact, it seems to me that Romans 1 directly contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when it says...

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It's not as if God's creation has changed or that mankind is any less capable of understanding it's testimony, so how can the doctrine survive even that single passage?

You're using Scripture to disprove Scripture??

 

[prodromos]

That is not relevant!

Context is entirely relevant if we are to interpret correctly.

That is, unless it is your intention to imply that only the Old Testament (and more specifically the Greek translation of it ) is all that counts as scripture.

No, but those are the Scriptures Paul is referring to in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

I'll ask you directly....

Is the New Testament scripture, yes or no?

Yes. At the time of Paul's writing of this letter to Timothy however, most of the New Testament was yet to be written, so Timothy would have only only understood Paul to be referring to the Old Testament.

 

[concretecamper]

Isnt it funny, the scripture most pointed to in order to defend Sola Scriptura actually refutes it.

Anyway, you could ask 100 different SS pastors about what SS is and you'll get 50 different answers.

 

[concretecamper]

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is "the only source of knowledge concerning God."

yes, that is the fall back definition once it is proved that so called SS believers beleive stuff that actually isnt defined in the bible. This forum has shown that the SS definition is a moving target at best.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Where is the truth? The truth is , no denomination is 100% teaching the truth. Man made doctrines always creep in.
Blessings

For a moment, let's suppose that's true.

Why isn't that cause for alarm? Sacred Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will guide the faithful into all truth. And yet, your post is premised upon the supposition that such a thing isn't happening. That we're not being guided into all truth.

I'm Catholic by conviction. I wouldn't be Catholic if I thought there was a single instance of doctrinal error in my Church's teachings. Maybe I'm right about the Catholic Church being the one founded by Our Lord and divinely guided and inspired, 100% free of error. But maybe I'm wrong. It's possible. And I imagine that I'll find out someday.

But if your post is true then there is no organization out there who teaches nothing but error-free truth. And you seem to be oddly comfortable with that. I do not think I can relate to the blasé attitude regarding doctrinal (or other) error in your post. I do not think I could continue being Christian if I believed that no Christian body was free from error. And I find it quite puzzling that seemingly you can.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Isnt it funny, the scripture most pointed to in order to defend Sola Scriptura actually refutes it.

Ditto the account of the Bereans in Acts 17. They literally practiced the opposite of "sola scriptura" and yet people who ardently believe in "sola scriptura" point to their example as something to emulate.

It's kind of funny, actually.

 

[dzheremi]

Agreed completely on post #93. There is a kind of "I'm OK, You're OK" attitude in many modern western Christian circles, because, hey...nobody can have it 100% right.

I'm glad the Holy Spirit isn't just some 'nobody', then, but GOD HIMSELF!

As we declare in the Prime hour of daily prayer, from the Coptic Agpeya (horologion):

THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH

One is God the Father of everyone.

One is His Son, Jesus Christ the Word, Who took flesh and died; and rose from the dead on the third day, and raised us with Him.

One is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, one in His Hypostasis, proceeding from the Father, purifying the whole creation, and teaching us to worship the Holy Trinity, one in divinity and one in essence. We praise Him and bless Him forever. Amen.

+++

Emphasis added. The correct faith and the teaching of it comes from the Holy Spirit, Who came down upon the believers gathered at Pentecost and enlightened and dwelled in our fathers and masters the holy Apostles and Disciples of Christ, leading them into all truth.

I'm glad to see by your post that this is something that Catholics like you and Orthodox like me can agree on.

^ This is simultaneously the history and ever-present reality of the faith, thread people.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

For a moment, let's suppose that's true.

Why isn't that cause for alarm? Sacred Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will guide the faithful into all truth. And yet, your post is premised upon the supposition that such a thing isn't happening. That we're not being guided into all truth.

I'm Catholic by conviction. I wouldn't be Catholic if I thought there was a single instance of doctrinal error in my Church's teachings. Maybe I'm right about the Catholic Church being the one founded by Our Lord and divinely guided and inspired, 100% free of error. But maybe I'm wrong. It's possible. And I imagine that I'll find out someday.

But if your post is true then there is no organization out there who teaches nothing but error-free truth. And you seem to be oddly comfortable with that. I do not think I can relate to the blasé attitude regarding doctrinal (or other) error in your post. I do not think I could continue being Christian if I believed that no Christian body was free from error. And I find it quite puzzling that seemingly you can.

I feel quite comfortable and burden free when I do not add to the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There is nothing better than the purity of the Gospel. Jesus Christ of Nazareth -plus-nothing more.
Blessings

 

[thecolorsblend]

I feel quite comfortable and burden free when I do not add to the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. There is nothing better than the purity of the Gospel. Jesus Christ of Nazareth -plus-nothing more.

What about the errors that you freely admitted to in your other post?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What about the errors that you freely admitted to in your other post?

i freely await God's judgment.
Blessings.

 

[thecolorsblend]

i freely await God's judgment.
Blessings.

Goodness, and you admitted that you embraced doctrinal error in your other post. Good luck!

 

[Clete]

Context is entirely relevant if we are to interpret correctly.

What are you even talking about?

The passage says that ALL SCRIPTURE is profitable...

The fact that the New Testament was still being written at the time is not relevant to whether that verse is applicable to the New Testament TODAY precisely because the New Testament is, in fact, scripture.

No, but those are the Scriptures Paul is referring to in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

So what?

The passage communicates a principle. If the New Testament counts as scripture then it applies - period.

Yes. At the time of Paul's writing of this letter to Timothy however, most of the New Testament was yet to be written, so Timothy would have only only understood Paul to be referring to the Old Testament.

Again, this is entirely irrelevant to the point. Your original point was that the bible doesn't speak about itself and now you've just conceded otherwise. Case closed.

 

[Albion]

I agree with all of this but sola scriptura goes a bit further than merely rejecting tradition or Papal authority. It says the the bible is the SOLE source of all doctrinal truth.

I think that's essentially what I said.

Before the New Testament existed perhaps but oral transmission of the Christian faith is rejected by Sola Scriptura for today.

No, it isn't. I have explained the Christian faith and its doctrines to people--in a conversation--many times myself and this in no way denigrates or replaces the role of Sceripture.

If you didn't get your doctrine directly from the bible...

Hold on. What started this line of thought was the idea that people in the very earliest days of the church--before the Bible was compiled, canonized--conveyed the faith as taught by the Apostles through the medium of word of mouth instruction.

BUT they did have most of the Bible at their disposal; it simply wasn't assembled yet into one volume such as we always think of. But in any case, once we have that completed work, it IS our standard. There is nothing strange about this.

In fact, it seems to me that Romans 1 directly contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when it says...

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

It's not as if God's creation has changed or that mankind is any less capable of understanding it's testimony, so how can the doctrine survive even that single passage?

You're reading too much into that passage. What doctrines, exactly, do you find explained there? All that's being said is that the natural order testifies to God's power. It's hardly any different from saying that the beauty and orderliness of the universe suggests that none of this could have come about without a designing intelligence behind it...and no one that I know says this refutes the concept we call Sola Scriptura which, at base, is a refutation of manmade doctrines attributed to church experience and called by the institutional church, after having done so, a second divine revelation (after Scripture).