Sola scriptura is not true and is a fales teaching

If SS is true as some say then WHY do we have more then ONE non-Cathloic Church,is it was true then we need ONE Church we have One Bible. Like we had for 1054 years. ONE Church ONE Bible One truth

There is an implicit idea in people who believe in Sola Scriptura, that we cannot trust any particular church or group to decide for us ultimately what is right and that each must take the individual responsibility to decide, through reading of the Bible, what is right for ourselves. Yet this is fallacious. If we cannot trust God can get the church right, then how can we be sure God will get our own mind right?

  1. Are you suggesting the Oriental Orthodox are not Christians Bill?
  2. Does the existence of more than one group that adheres to scripture and tradition negate that as well?

I am not trying to be pedantic but we have these same conversations over and over and yet phrases like (only one group of Christians prior to 1054 are still used).

Not all non-Catholic Christian Churches hold to Sola Scriptura. Therefore, the number of communions is not necessarily linked to SS.

On your other point, I agree we need one Church.

Jon

I like to point out to SS believers that the Catholic Church is the one who wrote and put together the Bible and the Church never intended for the Bible to stand alone but rather to work in cooperation with the teachings of the Church.

Some SS believers think they are in the one true church, until you point out to them that their church has only existed for 10, 20, 30 whatever but not 2000 years.

Besides if they want it to stand alone why do they take some of the books out? I wouldn’t mess with a document my faith is suppose to be based entirely on :rolleyes:.

There are a lot more SS inconsistencies I won’t go into here. But I’ll grand that some people believe it and never question it. I met with an old SS friend just last night and I think I shook him up a little - only because he was willing to listen and think. :shrug: I guess we are blessed with the ability to think as well as the teaching of the Church set up by Jesus.

But we must also grant that many cradle Catholics never think to learn about their own faith and so turn away. :frowning:

Brain, I,m not suggsting any thing .and if we had a reforum then we need one church what I,m saying is we need ONE Church, We have one bible so how can we have 38,000 non-cathloic denomination.One Church,One Bible,One truth. God does not need 38,000 denom.

Okay saying we need one church is part of your OP. But you put two statements in it as well that I am adressing. There were other Christians that were not Roman Catholic (and understand I am using that term for a reason) prior to 1054. You are not the only one to make that contention Bill and I am certainly not intending to pick on you for using it.
But we have to be accurate in our history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
I would also contend there were other groups as well that were Christian but I do not want to digress too much from what I think is your overall theme of unity.

Next, if the contention is that SS might lead to more division than tradition AND scripture…I think you will find people agree with you for the most part…I certainly do.
I think everyone agrees that we do not need that many denominations. The difficulty is getting people to agree on issues to be part of one visible church.

=Mel Stones;5605440]I like to point out to SS believers that the Catholic Church is the one who wrote and put together the Bible and the Church never intended for the Bible to stand alone but rather to work in cooperation with the teachings of the Church.

So long as the teachings of the Church do not contradict scripture. The early councils, the Creeds, and for Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession are Traditions that rightly reflect scripture. Scripture does not stand alone, but it is the final norm.

So long as the conscience of the believer is not bound to beliefs not necessary for salvation.

Some SS believers think they are in the one true church, until you point out to them that their church has only existed for 10, 20, 30 whatever but not 2000 years.

Some, but not many take a triumphalist view.

Besides if they want it to stand alone why do they take some of the books out? I wouldn’t mess with a document my faith is suppose to be based entirely on :rolleyes:.

Argued many times here (I know you are fairly new here, and welcome, btw), and those who don’t view the d-c’s as canon will say they never were. So, none were ever taken out, from the point of view.

Jon

Jon I know not all non cathloic church do not hold to SS I just for get to say most,again Sorry not trying to offend.

Bill, you did not offend at all. All I’m saying is the schimatic nature of the Christian community is not the result of Sola Scriptura, necessarily.
Jon

SS means no Church is needed and no one should enterpret Scriptures for you or something like that and all they need to understand Scriptures is to read them.
because of this teaching, it is hard for non Catholics to even begin to believe that there is any Church with authority. because of this teaching non Catholics ignore Scriptures that talks about the Church or Scriptures are distorted to agree with what they imagine it should be like.

for example: it is written that Jesus built a Church and this Church is visible because invisible church cannot teach us. but non Catholics continue to insist that Jesus is talking about an invisible Church. they make this up, so they dont to have believe that the CC is One Church. are they being misled? yes. are they guilt? yes. because they refuse to believe what the Church teaches. they even get angry if you tell them what the CC is. it reminds of the pharisees being angry at Jesus. they just could not accept what Jesus was saying was true. it was to much for them to accept. yet they were not excused for their umbelief and they remained guilty.

=wisdomseeker;5605777]SS means no Church is needed and no one should enterpret Scriptures for you or something like that and all they need to understand Scriptures is to read them.

Plain wrong!! This not what SS teaches. There is no place to receive the sacrament of the altar, and other sanctifying graces, than from the Church. In addition, at least for Lutherans, it is the Councils, creeds, ECF’s, and Lutheran Confessions that we turn to, not our own understanding or interpretation.
Martin Chemnitz

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

for example: it is written that Jesus built a Church and this Church is visible because invisible church cannot teach us. but non Catholics continue to insist that Jesus is talking about an invisible Church. they make this up, so they dont to have believe that the CC is One Church. are they being misled? yes. **are they guilt? yes. ** because they refuse to believe what the Church teaches. they even get angry if you tell them what the CC is. it reminds of the pharisees being angry at Jesus. they just could not accept what Jesus was saying was true. it was to much for them to accept. yet they were not excused for their umbelief and they remained guilty.

This has a couple of fallacies, but I will focus on the bolded. This is clearly your personal interpretation of Catholic teaching, or your own personal opinion, as your Catechism says:

818 "However, **one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers **. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

“One cannot charge”, and yet you appear to do so. Or am I mistaken?
Jon

This is a good read on Sola Scriptura as opposed to solo scriptura.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

can you explain this?

The revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura has been a source of great damage to the cause of Christ. The magisterial reformers were right to reject the early versions of it that appeared in the teaching of some radicals. Contemporary heirs of the reformers must follow the magisterial reformers here. The fight must be fought on two fronts. We are not only to reject the Roman Catholic doctrine (whether the two-source doctrine of Tradition 2 or the sola ecclesia doctrine of Tradition 3), which places final autonomous authority in the church. We must also reject the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura, which places final autonomous authority in the hands of each and every individual.

Wisdomsereker, Sorry but a I do ntot agree with your answer, and think most of it is just wrong may be you can send your info to me, you can send it here are in privatemThank s Have a great night

Tradition 0 - I interpret the Bible for myself, believing I am led my the Holy Spirit - Bad

Tradition 3 - Only the magisterium can interpret the scripture by itself - Bad

Tradition 2 - tradition is a second source of revelation along with the Bible - Bad

Tradition 1 - Sola Scriptura - where the church is the interpreter of divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei (rule of faith) is the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture is the Word of God. Neither the church nor the traditions are sources of revelation - Good.

ok. let me see if i got this right. this guy, whoever he is, is claiming authority to determine how Scriptures must be enterpreted or how God reveal Himself to us.
he criticizes solo Scripture and also rejects the OT of the CC.

then he talks about the church is the enterpreter of divine revelation, which church is he talking about here?

by the way, is this part of the talks in ecumenism with the CC?
is this guy a lutheran or some other denomination?

I dont think he rejects the OT of the catholic church:

The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of “tradition” itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei (“rule of faith”), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation “Tradition 1.”

I dont think he’s individually claiming authority to determine how scripture is to be interpreted - he’s explaining the original, and correct, understanding of sola scriptura.

Keith A Mathison - more information on him can be found here:

ligonier.org/publishing_studybible_contributors_keithmathison.php

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE

I do not want to sound pretentious, but I believe I represent a huge group of Christians within Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

While we find considerable wisdom and inspiration in the Bible, we are not Sola Scriptura Christians because there is simply too much in the Bible which is unacceptable. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, for example. Yes, there may have been a major flood in the Near East in ancient times, but for Noah to build an ark and take in two of every animal for the 150 days that the water remained on the earth - give me a break! Besides, I don't believe in a god who would drown everyone else, even little children, and then seem to regret what he had done, promise never to do it again, etc. 

 Or, my God would never order Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of such cities as Jericho and Ai, or command Saul to slay every last Amalekite. How does that fit in with the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount?

  The problems in the New Testament are fewer, but what about the admonition to slaves to obey their masters? That sounds like a justification for slavery to me, and it was used by defenders of slavery for generations. And the book of Revelation? A disaster area.

   We could go on and on but you get the point.

   As for Catholicism: no, I prize my freedom to wander around, examining different views without worrying about falling into heresy. Critics will say that I am unduly proud or whatever, but that's the way it it. Catholicism as well as Protestant fundamentalism both fail when they claim that there is only one way and they alone espouse that way. God is too big to condemn people because they think for themselves. When I consider this vast, majestic, mysterious universe with maybe a billion solar systems, I am humbled and awed. And I cannot get into a faith that centers so much attention on consuming Christ's blood and body, or on the mother of Jesus whom I honor but do not venerate or believe she was sinless and reigns as the "Queen of Heaven", or on saints like Padre Pio whom the Pope agreed levitated and bilocated, and so much more that strikes me as well-meaning myth but far-removed from history or reason.

   But religious folks also do much good work and for that they should be commended. May God bless all of his children, whatever their creed, color or country. I seek to be a committed follower of Jesus myself. I rejoice that we are saved by grace through simple faith and not through theology or church affiliation. May religion be a bridge rather than a barrier.

Ah…the shape of Sola Scriptura.

Good book. He has a definition that I actually agree with as I recall.

All I have read in these threads on the issue is a certain amount of self-congratulation in knocking down a definition of Sola Scriptura that nobody believes in. Good job.

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.