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

Actually, both. I might add repudiate/deny/denigrate. It’s all of a piece to these folks, sad to say.

Jesus is the one mediator of God’s justice, but not the only one who may pray for us. There’s a huge difference between the two ideas

Yet many Catholics call Mary a Mediatrix and they even consider her to be of an immaculate conception but Mary herself said that she needed a Savior
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

There are two ways one can be saved–either after committing sin, or saved from committing sin. In Mary’s case, because she was to be the mother of the Christ, she was preserved free of the stain of original sin through the redemption Christ gained on the cross. God could grant here this because when Jesus offered up his blood once and for all, it was in eternity, which is outside of time and space. Mary was privileged in this way as the Second Eve who conceived and bore in her womb the Second Adam.

Some Protestant denominations say the law was nailed to the cross
but the Apostle John says:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God

I’m afraid you lost me with this one. Anyway, Catholics believe Jesus’ death atoned for our sins, but we must bear the responsibility for the harm our sins have caused. Is that what you are addressing here? :slight_smile:

:smiley: BEEN THERE TOO,

Click on Profile on the top, then select “send a private message” and everything else is the same:)

I look forward to hearing from you,

God Bless and have a Holy …HOLY WEEK:thumbsup:

Pat [PJM]

I don’t think it is the Catholic church’s position that tradition takes precedence over scripture. Is that what is being suggested? I believe that it might fairly be stated that the church’s position is that the value of scripture and tradition as regards our understanding of God and our own natures (and the Church itself for that matter) lay in the synthesis of the two. It should not be an ‘either/or’ choice. The ‘fullness’ of the faith is to be found in the melding of scripture and tradition. It seems to me that to appreciate scripture deeply requires an understanding of the complexities and interrelatedness of language, culture, politics, ancient religious traditions, evolving religious traditions, as well as social and economic structures; all of which permeate both scripture and tradition: and then further influence how scripture and tradition are handed down to us. Finally, tradition is a living and evolving thing. It should grow along with our understanding while preserving fundamental tenants of faith which we may come to see and understand differently as our wisdom itself becomes more full. At the same time, we cannot forget that sometimes the Word of God is profound beyond our understanding and will always present challenges to our knowledge. But, for me, therein lies the one of joys of contemplating the mystery as a whole! Sorry for rambling. May God Bless Us All.

Well, the whole deposit of the faith is called “Sacred Tradition”, which includes the written word of God as well as the oral teachings of the Apostles and the living Magisterium. It’s not a static thing, but a living faith that goes back to Adam and Eve through the covenants with Abraham to Moses, to Jesus and on to the Apostles. It’s all of a piece, so to separate one from any of the others distorts it as well as the others, if you see what I mean. It’s like sitting on a two-legged stool or an off-balanced one-legged stool to exclude any of the three in favor of only one of them be it the Bible or the Church Fathers/Apostles or the Magisterium. Our Lord was very wise to set up this kind of “check and balance” system of authority. It is a safeguard against heresy and errors, supported as it is by the Holy Spirit’s gift of infallibility promised to the Church.

Yes! It’s the intermingling of all these (and I might include ‘Liturgy’) that provides the ‘Fullness’ of our faith. I was trying to address the suggestion that there must be some kind of primacy regarding scripture over tradition. Your explanation is well done!

=toosan1967;9132198]I don’t think it is the Catholic church’s position that tradition takes precedence over scripture. Is that what is being suggested? I believe that it might fairly be stated that the church’s position is that the value of scripture and tradition as regards our understanding of God and our own natures (and the Church itself for that matter) lay in the synthesis of the two. It should not be an ‘either/or’ choice. The ‘fullness’ of the faith is to be found in the melding of scripture and tradition. It seems to me that to appreciate scripture deeply requires an understanding of the complexities and interrelatedness of language, culture, politics, ancient religious traditions, evolving religious traditions, as well as social and economic structures; all of which permeate both scripture and tradition: and then further influence how scripture and tradition are handed down to us. Finally, tradition is a living and evolving thing. It should grow along with our understanding while preserving fundamental tenants of faith which we may come to see and understand differently as our wisdom itself becomes more full. At the same time, we cannot forget that sometimes the Word of God is profound beyond our understanding and will always present challenges to our knowledge. But, for me, therein lies the one of joys of contemplating the mystery as a whole! Sorry for rambling. May God Bless Us All.

Your correct; the Church views both as being “on the same shelf”. The Bible contains a great deal of Tradition; most especially in the OT. As I mentioned previously w/o Tradition there would be np bible.

The New Catholic 'The Way" / Christion…Catholic] church existed for about 70 years before the bible was written and even after that their was a period of “no bible” until all the Books were collected.:slight_smile:

[quote]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

Why do you think so? And what is not so obvious about the protestant answer?

Does Mark have to say he authored “The Gospel of Mark” in order for Sola Scriptura to be true? If so, can you explain why without assuming a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura?

It is a question of “Authority”? SS is a question of authority.

Those titles were added later. But authorship was important in determining what is Scripture and what is not.

That is why the Gospel of Mark is there, the gospel of Peter or Thomas or Mary is not in the Canon of the Bible. It is a question of “Authority”.

In believing why the Bible is the word of God, you are accepting the Authority of the CC which determined which is Scripture and not.

If you can accept this authority of the CC, why cannot you accept its authority for some other things?

Why would your authority take precedent over the Church’s? It is a question of Authority!

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Can you explain how this passage from 1John4 applies today? and relate it to SS?

[quote]Note, Sola Scripturists misunderstand Sola Scriptura, which is why they “come up with different answers”. .

[/quote]

You answer is the typical protestant response that I have seen…minimize the authorship, or question the importance of the authorship…in order to avoid answering the question.

So to refute one’s representation of the doctrine, even if he’s an advocate of it, might be to refute a straw-man

So can you explain how it becomes a strawman?
[/quote]

I am not against tradition as long as it does not contradict scripture. When it contradicts scripture it should be seen as uninspired and fraudulent.

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it “transgresses the commands of God” (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus’ own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God.

As i mentioned in another post there are many traditions in Catholicism and even some in Protestantism that directly contradict scripture. Godly inspiration never contradicts itself.

From a previous post let me list a few of those blatant contradictions:

1 Tim 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Yet many Catholics call Mary a Mediatrix and they even consider her to be of an immaculate conception but Mary herself said that she needed a Savior
Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

Jesus warned us in Matt 23:8-11 not to call any man father, master or rabbi, yet the Catholic church insists on calling priests “Father”.

Some Protestant denominations say the law was nailed to the cross
but the Apostle John says:
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God

Col 2:14-15 says the “handwriting of ordinances” were blotted out at the cross and that is a direct reference to the ceremonial law that was written out by Moses. and not the Moral Law written by the finger of God…

Our debt was not nailed to the cross. Our debt is taken away when we repent and confess our sins to our High Priest Jesus who is the only mediator between God and mankind.

Daniel 7:25 warns us that men would even think to change times and laws.
Has not both Catholicism and most Protestant denominations (excluding 7th day Baptists and 7th day Adventists) changed the day of the 4th commandment to Sunday . Has not the Catholic church even removed the second commandment and split the 10th into 2 parts?

Without sola scriptura men are at liberty to contradict the inspired word at their own discretion and Christ no longer becomes our Lord, but rather men claiming to speak for Him…

Unfortunately, you are incorrect on a lot your responses. Case in point, you stated in your opening statement:

I am not against tradition as long as it does not contradict scripture. When it contradicts scripture it should be seen as uninspired and fraudulent

This begs the question: Where is the tradition of anyone starting their own church apart from the one Christ founded? Is it not fraudulent?

Hi Pablobe, also I think we can add this in to fit in the spirit of Lent:

2 Cor 5:20 : For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God. (DRB)

MJ

Uhm…yes, it does say our debt to the law was nailed to the cross. That is, the penalty for violating God’s law was canceled by Christ’s work on the cross.

Ok, but you do realize there are huge disagreements on interpretation within the “Sola Scriptura” crowd!

I’ll rephrase your post so it reflects what is observed in the world!

Without **Sacred Tradition, men take liberty and contradict the inspired word at their own discretion, so Christ our Lord, has **men without authority claiming to speak for Him…

St. Augustine
“Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority and to make every man’s mind the authority of what he is to approve or disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture, but to make Scripture subject to you. If you discard authority, to what, I beseech you, will you take yourself?” (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 32:19 [A.D. 400])

I think the Catholic answer is not so obvious, because of what it hinges on according to the RCC. It doesn’t hinge on Scripture alone. And there is no valid reason why. The reasons I’ve heard assume what I believe is a misunderstanding as to what Scripture is and a theory of knowledge that I don’t believe to be adequate.

I define Scripture as all of the propositions therein.

It is a question of “Authority”? SS is a question of authority.

Indeed, it is.

To present an answer to your question, I believe Mark authored the Gospel of Mark, because Scripture (which includes the Gospel of Mark and which is my authority) allows and maybe even requires me to do so just as Scripture allows me to believe other things that are not stated in Scripture whether they are affirmed by the Catholic Church or not.

If you have more questions for me, that’s fine. Now let me ask you some questions. Why did the Roman Catholic Church believe that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark when they “determined” that it should be regarded as Scripture? Why did they believe that what they believed to be attributable to Mark had to meet a specific criteria in order for it to be collected among the other collected writings? Why did they believe the criteria they used was valid?

I haven’t thought through every aspect of my view on this topic as I’m a student of Scripture until I die. So the questions I pose are not just for the sake of scrutinizing you, though I surely mean to do that. I pose them also to elicite responses to help me further carve out what I believe.

Those titles were added later. But authorship was important in determining what is Scripture and what is not.

Based upon what ultimately was the authorship important in determining what is Scripture and what is not?

Also, can you please define “determine”? I make this request because I think that it tends to be assumed that Catholics and Protestants mean ‘determine’ in the same sense when, in fact, that’s not always the case. I believe that the Church determined what Scripture was the same way we determine the answer to a math problem. And yet, just as men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture so that the authorship could be attributed to God, they are moved by the Holy Spirit to decide what it was so that the decision could also be attributed to God. So ultimately, God is the one who decides what Scripture is as it’s his Word, which he has spoken. And I know to trust that decision as realized through the Church on account of Scripture. So I trust the Church to the extent that I trust Scripture.

In believing why the Bible is the word of God, you are accepting the Authority of the CC which determined which is Scripture and not.

As best as I can, I accept that determination because of my disposition to accept Scripture. (How does one know that determination is valid anway!?)

If you can accept this authority of the CC, why cannot you accept its authority for some other things?

The authority that I accept is Scripture’s (This probably seems redundant by now). So I don’t believe Roman Catholicism just because it’s Roman Catholicism that’s making an affirmation. This accounts for why I don’t submit in respect to other things.

Why would your authority take precedent over the Church’s? It is a question of Authority!

Who says that my authority takes precedent over the Church’s…unless my authority is Scripture’s authority?

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Can you explain how this passage from 1John4 applies today? and relate it to SS?

I’ll try…

If the Apostles are meant by “we” (as I think), considering that they had seen Jesus in the flesh as John himself states, then it is the Apostle’s doctrine that is to be listened to or it is merely their proclamation as to what John says they had seen. Scripture requires that we take heed to the Apostle’s doctrine (as it did before the N.T. was written!) as well as their claim that Jesus was manifested in the flesh. But this is not to say that there aren’t other things that Scripture would require us to take heed to on account of this passage or other passages. For there are commandments to obey which were given by the Apostles and others as elders within the Church (or within local churches) and this is a tradition that continues even today. Heck, there are commandments that are given by civil government that are to be obeyed because Scripture requires it.

If a spirit who confess’s that Jesus had come in the flesh is meant by “we”, then whether he is an Apostle (or some other kind of elder) or layperson, he should be listened to as one who is inclined and apt to speak or teach according to Scripture.

You answer is the typical protestant response that I have seen…minimize the authorship, or question the importance of the authorship…in order to avoid answering the question.

So can you explain how it becomes a strawman?

It becomes a straw-man if it’s a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. If you have refuted anything, it might not have been Sola Scriptura, but a misrepresentation of it.

A misrepresentation of SS? So what you are saying that there exist one official representation of SS? If so according to whose official interpretation? Lutherans? Baptists? Church of Christ? Church of the Nazarene? Etc,etc? Whose representation makes it official?

This begs the question: Why do you insist in clinging to the false assumption that your particular denomination is the sole and exclusive church which Christ founded?

I think this is the best work put out on the topic.

amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333392297&sr=8-1

Even better, as is with most things Catholic, here is the book online! :slight_smile:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

I don’t mean to say that there is one “official” representation. Any representation that is consistent with Sola Scriptura is a proper representation, whether “official” or not.

From what I’ve seen, among those who have proven themselves most proficient and consistent are John Calvin, Herman Ridderbos, Gordon Clark, and Vincent Cheung. And of course I’m bias, but I’ve never seen a successful refutation against them.

A couple of examples of those that I think have fallen short in their advocacy of Sola Scriptura are Greg Bahnsen and R.C. Sproul. But I still think Roman Catholics would have a hard enough time with them.

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.