Follow up on SS

Follow up - Eric Roberts said: “We are six…oops…no, five posts away from the magic 1000 mark. Let’s wrap it up, or start a follow-up thread folks.”

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

Joe, I am thinking that perhaps we are asking the wrong question here; maybe that’s why we seem to talk past each other on SS.

Would you agree that the Scriptures contains the truth necessary for salvation through Christ? Do we need more than that for salvation?

John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

The purpose of Scriptures is to point to Christ.

Like Christ said above, searching the Scriptures and making it something it wasn’t meant to be - will undoubtedly make us miss the boat.

This fact is clearer when Scriptures themselves tells us that.

And to answer your question: yes, we need more for salvation. Christ wants all of what we are, our entire life. Not just the reading part.

The Pharisees missed the boat by using Scripture Alone. Even the devil used Scriptures to tempt Christ.

Nope, not alone.

I think this question is important. Scripture alone cannot settle doctrinal differences, and these doctrines found in scripture, which are subject to varying interpretations when using SS, are about salvation, therefore of the utmost importance - right?

Also, didn’t Jesus say that he is the head and Savior of his body, the church, meaning that we need his church as well, especially when it comes to resolving doctrinal differences? Scripture alone does not work, but rather divides, as everyone can see by looking at all of the doctrinal and actual division since the advent of the practice of SS.

:yup:

I am not sure, though, how applying Jesus’ words to the Pharisees to those who hold to SS is accurate. Jesus was not critiquing the sufficiency of the Scriptures, but the blindness and hard hearts of the Pharisees who refused to see that Scripture was all about Him. Unless those who hold to SS are denying the Messiah, it isn’t germaine.

But St. John also said, in 20:31 “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

So is what John wrote sufficient, or insufficient? Was he wrong in that statement?

I don’t believe that mere reading of Scripture saves - c’mon, now. :frowning: Without grace we would have no faith nor works.

I know, just stressing a point :wink:

Agreed!

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

Brother, what John wrote is only sufficient if it is accompanied by God’s grace. And it would not then be by Scripture alone, it would be by God’s grace through His Word that Faith grows in works of Love.

An atheist can read the same passage and it means nothing to him. Would St. John be lying if the atheist reads and does not believe. St. John structures that sentence with “may”.

May believe, may have life. So that it helps.

Sufficiency should not be equated with efficacy. They are 2 different things.

Agree 100%. Word as means of grace.

An atheist can read the same passage and it means nothing to him. Would St. John be lying if the atheist reads and does not believe. St. John structures that sentence with “may”.

May believe, may have life. So that it helps.

Sufficiency should not be equated with efficacy. They are 2 different things.

Correct. But if the atheist is given the gift of faith through the preaching of that word (and let me agree, that we’re not really talking about “reading” here, although it can include that), he needs nothing else to be justified.

Well, not to introduce Filioque/no Filioque lol but
I would like to suggest we not retire God the Holy Spirit
just yet…

What about Baptism and the Eucharist invincible ignorance notwithstanding i.e. the powerful graces that come from the sacraments that keep us coming back to receive the holy Eucharist which is Jesus’ Body and Blood?

Ditto. The eucharist and baptism are the word of God under bread, wine and water, as Scripture is the word of God in voice, paper and ink. All convey God’s saving grace because they are the word of God.

Both the Eucharist and Baptism are taught in scripture but are in fact separate things from the word of God - right i.e. we need both the word of God, as well as the holy Eucharist and Baptism?

Back to the OP:

Everyone agrees that doctrinal disputes, when they arise, cannot be resolved via sola scriptura i.e. scripture alone; that idea simply does not work, but rather divides. Is there another option to consider, when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes, other than the idea that God left the world with a a teaching office guided by God, in terms of all truth being available to all generations until Jesus’ return: John 16:13 and John 14:16?

I think that while JN14:16 and JN 16:13 is all well and fine, one needs to look at JN 21:25 where is says “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” What this tell me is that there were many things that Jesus said and did and taught that was not written down. In the first early years after the resurrection, there was little thought given to writing down a Christian library. Some of this was undoubtedly due to the example of the Lord Himself, who like the rabbis of the time, taught by the spoke word, which in turn was remembered and discussed by disciples. There was no need for writing while the Apostles were still alive to clarify or verify anything uncertain.

What Jesus commanded and meant the Apostles to do was precisely what He had done Himself, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice, convince, persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face to living men and women; not entrust their message to a book which might perish and be destroyed and be misunderstood and misinterpreted and corrupted, but adopt the more safe and natural way of present the truth to them by word of mouth and the training others to do the same after they themselves were gone and so, by a living tradition, preserving and handing down the Word of God, as they had received it, to all generations.

The Gospels are incomplete and fragmentary, giving us certainly the most important things to know about our Savior's earthly life, but still not telling us all we might know or much we do know in fact and understand better through the teaching of the Catholic Church, which has preserved traditions handed down since the time of the Apostles, from generation to generation. what is contained in what we call the New Testament were called into existence at various times to meet pressing needs and circumstances, were addressed to particular individuals and communities in various places and not to the Catholic Church at large. The writing  that would be called sacred Scripture, the New Testament  was the furthest thing from the minds of the Apostles and writers, they did not or never thought that what they wrote would be put into a one volume and made to do the duty as a complete and all sufficient statement of Christian faith and morals; this in no way undervalues the written Word of God or placing it on a level inferior to what it deserves, but shows the position it was meant to occupy in the economy of the Christian Church; it was written by  the Church; it belongs to the Church, and it is her office, therefore, to declare what it means. It is intended for instruction, meditation, spiritual reading, encouragement, devotion, and also serves as proof and testimony of the Church's doctrines an divine authority; but as a complete exclusive guide to heaven in the hands of every man, this it never was and never intended to be. The Church came before the New Testament and supplements the oral teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church.

Separate, I would say, in form, but not in substance. Both Scripture and the sacraments are the word of God in different forms. Both have the same results.

The question from our perspective is not that there is a lack of a teaching office. Rather, where the teaching office is located as well as its authority relative to the Scriptures.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.