Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

I believe you have it backward. The bible is founded on the Church, not the other way round. The scriptures, as written and handed down (paradosis, or tradition), are based on the oral Apostolic teachings. The Church was founded without NT scripture, and grew for 20-30 years with absolutely no NT scripture. Zero. How did it do that? Look to the prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4): His prologue explains that Luke wrote the Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theolphilus had already received. Theophilus learned nothing new from scripture. He was provided only with written confirmation of the oral teaching he already had.

Everything in scripture came from within the oral tradition, otherwise the bible would not exist. Our Lord did not dictate the bible to scribes. Rather, He promised the Holy Spirit to remind the Apostles of all that He had taught them, and to teach them further (John 14:26). None of the NT was written while our Lord was speaking, or while those events were being played out, but rather, 20-30 years later. All that is in the Gospels was handed on by the oral teaching tradition (paradosis) of the Apostles. Even the Acts were written by Luke for the same purpose, but written as much as 32 years after they occurred. Since Luke was not an eyewitness, he relied solely on the Oral Apostolic Tradition.

Let’s be clear: the bible is also a tradition, which simply means that it was “handed down” to us. Notice that Luke begins with “it seemed good to me” (Luke 1:3) He does not claim to be inspired, so how do we know he was? The Church, by her God-given authority, has declared it so. The bible, as a written record, is incomplete and tells us so in many places (i.e. Luke 3:18, John 20:23, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34). Since man lives on every word that flows from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4), and the bible tells us that “every word” is not in the bible, one can have only an incomplete teaching if they rely on the bible alone. Since God’s Word does not return to him void (Isaiah 55:11) “every word” must be kept somewhere else. The Church.

@ Pablope- Thank you…got to love the early Church father’s for their writings because there we see that these arguments against the true church are nothing new .

I understand what you mean, but actually those same Scriptures were founded upon Catholic teachings, not the other way around. The books chosen to be included in the New Testament were weighed against what the Church already taught and believed according to Sacred Tradition. There were many writings circulating which were not chosen. The Church proclaimed the chosen books to be inspired based upon the truth it already held according to what it had received from the Apostles in the beginning.

While the Church, of course, did away with writings which contained error, according to its Tradition, it also had in its possession many beautiful writings which are not heretical (i.e. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians) and contain truth, but it determined that they also were not inspired. We believe (and all Christians had better hope) that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in making this determination of the canon of Sacred Scripture.

To the OP’s concern, however, it seems a little disingenuous that some would hold on to a collection of books determined to be the inspired word of God as their sole source of faith and yet reject the very Church that made that determination.

Actually, they are holding up only 90.41 percent of inspired scripture (66 books out of 73). So, they employ their man-made authority, not only on interpretation, but on the canon as well.

Sad, but true. :thumbsup:

To be fair, they reject the full canon as declared by the Council of Trent in favor of the Jewish canon of the OT, formulated after the establishment of the Church by a Jewish council, which excised some of the OT books the Church has included in the canon. The original KJV included the Deutrocanonical books, but these were removed from it in later editions. Still, neither the Protestant nor the Jewish councils had the authority from God to create a canon, something they will, of course, refute.

To be fair, they reject the full canon as declared by the Council of Trent in favor of the Jewish canon of the OT, formulated after the establishment of the Church by a Jewish council, which excised some of the OT books the Church has included in the canon. The original KJV included the Deutrocanonical books, but these were removed from it in later editions. Still, neither the Protestant nor the Jewish councils had the authority from God to create a canon, something they will, of course, refute.

Thank you for your responses. We did a bible study today on John and basically got into a talk on free will. She had told me that it doesn’t exist. Where in the bible does it say that we have free will? I really need an Ignatius Study Bible…when I told her that Peter was the first Pope she looked at me like I was crazy, asking me where it says that in the Bible basically saying that through Jesus ALONE is our salvation and nothing else. Anybody in KS that wants to do a Catholic Bible Study?

And please do explain what a canon is…no I did not go to Catholic School.

What you have to keep in mind is what does the scripture state. You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

The greek word for Peter is Rock.

Jesus spoke Simon Cephas. The Pershitta text and the Olt Syriac text use Kepha for both Peter and Rock.

So with that said Jesus said Upon this Rock I will build my Church. Peter, Rock the same word!:smiley:

The word canon simply means “list” or “category”. The Church decided which OT books and which NT books (written in the 1st century) would comprise the canon of Scripture, you see. I hope that helps.

It’s no surprise that your friend knows so little about the Catholic faith and has skewed ideas about free will, etc. She knows no better because she’s been taught no better.

If you want to learn via a free correspondence course about the Catholic understanding of the Bible, and other important Catholic teachings go here: amm.org/chss/chss.asp. Once you’ve gotten into the material you could start a Bible study at your parish if one doesn’t already exist. :slight_smile:

Luther rejected the Greek canon of the diaspora and chose the post-Christian Jewish canon. A very odd thing to do, actually. What this does is leave a 200 year gap in scripture leading up to Christ’s birth, even though our Lord said “the prophets and the law prophesied until John (the baptist)” (Matthew 11:13) So, is the Jewish/Luther canon wrong, or is our Lord a liar?

=suzyq_psu;9122341]Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

AS WELL ONE OUGHT TO BE.:slight_smile:

WHY?

Because nowhere in the ENTIRE bible is this mandated or even suggested:blush:

BUT this is IN THE BIBLE:

2 Thess. 2: 13 “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess. 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us

James 5:12 “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation. “

2 Thess. 2: 15-17 “ So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.”

**1 Cor. 11 2: 2 **“I commend you because you remember me in everything and ***maintain the traditions ***even as I have delivered them to you”

So in order to hold their belief they must invent their own doctrine AND IGNORE what the Bible Teaches… God figure:)

God Bless,
Pat

Thank you all, I am looking into lots of books to read from the library and the home study that you suggested. It makes sense to me (the tradition part) but most arguments will say well who says the tradition is Catholic tradition? How can I convince them that Peter was the first Pope?

As to why Catholic tradition is right–it’s right because it is not just our tradition it is Sacred Tradition handed on from Abraham to Moses to Jesus who handed it on to his Apostles, who are the bishops of the Church. It’s an unbroken line that the Protestants can’t claim since they broke with it during the reformation.

I don’t think we can convince anyone of anything. All we can do is present the evidence for Peter’s primacy, which is overwhlemingly in favor of it both in Scripture and the Early Church Fathers.

Originally Posted by Della
To be fair, they reject the full canon as declared by the Council of Trent in favor of the Jewish canon of the OT, formulated after the establishment of the Church by a Jewish council, which excised some of the OT books the Church has included in the canon. The original KJV included the Deutrocanonical books, but these were removed from it in later editions. Still, neither the Protestant nor the Jewish councils had the authority from God to create a canon, something they will, of course, refute.

[quote=po18guy ]Luther rejected the Greek canon of the diaspora and chose the post-Christian Jewish canon. A very odd thing to do, actually. What this does is leave a 200 year gap in scripture leading up to Christ’s birth, even though our Lord said “the prophets and the law prophesied until John (the baptist)” (Matthew 11:13) So, is the Jewish/Luther canon wrong, or is our Lord a liar?
[/quote]

Well, that’s the natural conclusion, isn’t it? Although, again, they’d refute it. :wink:

O.K. Thank you :slight_smile:

For protestants…it boils down mainly to a problem with authority…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/authority.pdf

You may not be able to convince them…but you can challenge them and their thinking…and let the Holy Spirit take over…just plant the seed.

Ask them this question:

Why do you believe Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? Please provide the chapter and verse where Mark claims he authored the Gospel of Mark. And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now believe the gospel of Mark is inspired? Why should it be part of Scripture? of the Bible?

They will come up with different answers, their opinions, in order to avoid the obvious answer.:smiley:

Come back here and post their answers when you ask this of them.

what do you find so threatening or confusing in this ‘post’ ?

Torture youself no longer. Ask youself one question: Which Christian Church teaches the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? When you answer that, then go join that Church!

This person also describes that Allah - God of Abraham - is not the same as the Christian God - God of Abraham.

Because of the religions being so different (when they’re not) the pope lies about everything. This is a fallacy.

He claims you can not join the Church but rather the Holy Spirit puts you in it. I guess this comes from his idea that we must be baptized.

1 Corinthians 10:4) The Church is a spiritual entity built by the Holy Spirit by baptizing believers into the Church

Ironically the first step to joining Catholic Church is to be baptized. If this is without human action; then it would appear anyone can be baptized just by saying.

this guy claims those in the rock are not judged, yet it is clearly stated that ALL of us will be. logically this creates problems in understanding who is in the church and how should one act.
it follows the thought that since we are saved (once) by Jesus; no matter what we do we can’t be evil and go to hell. perhaps you may find error in such a thought.

that I will put thee in a cleft of the Rock…That cleft in the Rock was the spear thrust into His side while He hung on the Cross

the word “thee” is a form of you. its old English. clearly that doesn’t make sense

[quote=the guy]That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church
[/quote]

[quote=newadvent.org bible]18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church,
[/quote]

Peter means rock, which is later stated, “upon this rock”

In the Greek, we would read it as, Thou art Petros (meaning a stone) and upon this Petra

Firstly, I am sure that Mathew was written in Hebrew and not greek…

even if this guy was right the translation would have read, “thou are Peter(rock); and upon this stone…”. It isn’t though.

so if there are no differences to show that there is a change in subject…the subject does not change.

Remember that patience is a virtue. read and don’t take things under so much threat. then just study what is taught and I have heard others say, “pray upon it”. so pray and meditate about it.

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.