Sola Scriptura Seperating Us


#1

Don’t like admitting it took me this long, but I just discovered another belief title given to all non-Catholics.

Doesn’t every possible disagreement between Catholics and other Christians come down to Sola Scriptura? As long as the belief of Sola Scriptura (or disbelief) exists this seperation will exist. It is surprising that most of the arguments taking place have leaped over this. Why argue that something isn’t in scripture with anyone that does not believe scripture to be the only word and will of God?

I’m sure there are other threads explaining why to not believe in sola scriptura, but does someone have a complete list of reference scripture (scratching head wondering if this is an ironic request) they could post here as educational to me? Cut & paste or give link? Maybe from both sides? My own reading has turned up little and anyone I know personally messes it all up.

I know, I might have explained some of this wrong. That’s why I’m looking to clarify.

Thanks


#2

that is sorta right

but the real differences we have are actually grounded in authority, or lack of authority

Catholics recognize three sources of Truth - Bible, Tradition, Magisterium

Non-Catholics have one: Bible (with self or individual interpretation as their guide)


#3

More questions

What do you mean by grounded in authority? Do you mean who/what is a legit source of truth?

Sources of truth question:
I understand bible and tradition and Magisterium(although a refresher of what scripture references this would be appreciated. I forgot)

Interpretation question:
Was the word of God not intended to be understood by anyone reading it? Or, at least the commands to us for how to live and worship?

Thanks


#4

It does generally come down to authority- why believe in only the bible when the bible itself doesn’t have a table of contents? So then the authority of the CC to decide what was/wasn’t inspired…etc


#5

[quote=sententia]It does generally come down to authority- why believe in only the bible when the bible itself doesn’t have a table of contents? So then the authority of the CC to decide what was/wasn’t inspired…etc
[/quote]

Sorry, somewhat new so everything said plants new questions. Is there scripture in the bibles I read (NIV, KJV) that is considered to be false or written incorrectly?

I’ll wait until I learn more before digging into why the CC has this authority. My brain can’t absorb too much at once.


#6

Hi EF,
These may help some Scripture and Tradition and then there is also 5 Myths About 7 Books and 150 Reasons Why I am Catholic and then Going Beyond By Patrick Madrid.

Material and Formal suffiency

Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural

The Protestant idea of the “Bible alone” (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. The Bible even warns against sola scriptura. In the Old Testament God gave authority to his priests to interpret his laws and issue binding teaching based on those interpretations, even with regard to criminal and civil issues- both of which were dealt with by divine revelation (d. Lev. 20:1-27, 25:1-55). In the New Testament, he endowed the Church with infallibility in teaching.

“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another. … you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose, and, coming to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you. . . and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; according to the instructions which they give you. . . you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God or the judge, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-12).

“[O]n this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19).

“*f he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18:15-18).

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

“If I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame” (1 Cor. 10:8).

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

“[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13).

“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. 2:15).

(“Verse By Verse” from This Rock*
Volume 6, Number 6
June 1995


#7

Thanks, that looks like some excellent reading. I’ll have to wait until after class tonight though.


#8

eaglesfeather,

Here are some of my thoughts. I am at work so please forgive me if I do not have **exact **references. The “Bible” itself is a tradition. Jesus, the apostles and earliest disciples were hebrews. They used the Torah and other religious writings like the Prophets, Judges, Psalms, etc. in their worship. Our earliest Christian brothers & sisters did not have a “Bible”. What they had was the hebrew writings and they used primarily the Greek translation refered to as the Septuigent (sp). This is where Christianity ‘got’ what is refered to as the “Old Testament”. You see it was the ‘traditional’ religious writings from which Christianity has its roots and these writings were still used by the early Christians.

As time passed, the early Christians began to write about Jesus. This became especially important as the original followers of Jesus began to die off and the first of their followers began to pass away. The earliest writings are the letters sent to various churches that addressed the issues that were cropping up in this new group. Then the four Gospels were written, they have the highest place of honor as they were written to preserve the teachings of Jesus.

Lots of writings were preserved, not all of which became part of the Canon of the Church. There are some very early [180 - 200 AD comes to mind] lists of which books were considered part of the Deposit of Faith. At the Council of Nicea * around 390 - 394 AD [pretty close in time] the list of New Testiment books described there is what we have today. However, the Canon was not settled and declared closed until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. The Council of Trent was called to reform problems in the Church and to answer the Protestants, specifically Luther, who wanted to remove 1 Timothy, Revelation and a couple of other books in addition to removing some of the Hebrew books.

What is clear is that the “Bible” as we have it today did not exist for a couple of hundred years and is itself part of the Tradition. To then call upon that something to be the Sole Source of belief is illogical and without foundation.

Also, no where in scripture does Scripture tell you to rely solely upon it. Jesus never instructed any writings to be made except for the instruction to John to ‘write down what you see’ in the first part of Revelation. Scripture is ‘useful for instruction and reproach’ whic I think comes from 1 Timothy.

However, there are also references to not ‘seperating’ yourself from your bishop, ‘faith without works’ being dead and holding ‘fast to the Traditions received, whether by word of mouth or by letter’, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.’ All of which all support a three legged approach including Tradition, Scripture, and Teaching Authority.

To be authentically Christian, you need to seek all three and they should ba able to support and not contradict each other. I hope this helps…

Pax Christe*


#9

[quote=sententia]It does generally come down to authority- why believe in only the bible when the bible itself doesn’t have a table of contents? So then the authority of the CC to decide what was/wasn’t inspired…etc
[/quote]

Where We Got the Bible

Perhaps Sententia didn’t express that as well as possible.

The point is… simple history shows that it was the Catholic popes and councils who defined what was inspired canon, starting in 382 AD and have protected and affirmed that same canon ever since. The non-Catholic Bibles that lack the Deuterocanonical books are edited versions that do not agree with those early church affirmations. Those books were erroneously edited out about 500 years ago by Martin Luther, but if you look into it you’ll find that he also rejected at least 4 books from the New Testament as well. :eek:

When it comes down to authority…one has to realize that the early church was Catholic both in name and belief. Read this letter from the bishop of Antioch in 107 AD (Note especially chapter 8)

I hope this helps you a bit my friend. :slight_smile:
Pax tecum,


#10

[quote=eaglesfeather]Thanks, that looks like some excellent reading. I’ll have to wait until after class tonight though.
[/quote]

Please PM me if I can assist in any way at all.
God bless and know that you are in my prayers. :slight_smile:
Pax tecum,


#11

You guys are too good. This gives me a lot to study for this topic. On other forums such topics were instantly heated (which got me heated) and I never learned a thing.

Thanks much


#12

Eaglesfeather,

All of the passages that I allured to are in your bibles. Some translations are better than others, true whether they are Protestant or Catholic and even some Protestant bibles include the Dueterocanonicals (Hebrew texts that were removed after the Reformation). The original King James version was not one of the better translations but new versions are better. I still have the KJV I received in 1964 as a young child and use it sometimes. I also have several others that I use depending upon if I am doing biblical study or devotion.

I also recommend the “Where We Got the Bible” book another poster suggested, it is very good, clear and easy read, you’ll sale right through it. I love history and I encourage you to read the book and then research the claims. It helps you learn when you independently check the information. Also, you can determin if the author started the work with a predetermined/biased position.
I do not believe that you will come to that conclusion when you have finished ith “Where We Go the Bible”

And remeber wat St. Jerome said “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ” As followers of the Master, we do not want to be ignorant. :thumbsup:

Pax Christe


#13

From Church Militant:
The point is… simple history shows that it was the Catholic popes and councils who defined what was inspired canon, starting in 382 AD and have protected and affirmed that same canon ever since. The non-Catholic Bibles that lack the Deuterocanonical books are edited versions that do not agree with those early church affirmations. Those books were erroneously edited out about 500 years ago by Martin Luther, but if you look into it you’ll find that he also rejected at least 4 books from the New Testament as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong Church Militant, but I believe that Luther only thought about dropping the 4 books of the NT. There is of course his famous reference to the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” but Luther did retain the books in question. Although he realized that these books put a dent in his theology, he never took the step of removing them from the NT.

CathChemNerd


#14

#15

GodSoldier;

Some Catholic theologians (a modern one being Scott Hahn) posit that the book of John’s Revelation is in fact a symbolic and allegorical representation of the liturgy of the Church. In fact, the book of Revelation is replete with liturgical references, postures, songs, etc. that do in fact closely parallel the Mass. The Church models her liturgy on earth from looking at the liturgy that happens in Heaven (John’s Revelation).

Also, some of the earliest writings of the Church make reference to the proper ordrer of the liturgy. In the year 150 AD, Justin Martyr lays out a very descriptive account of how the “early Christians” worship, and it is very striking how similar that is with the Mass that Catholics continue to celebrate. I’m sorry that I’m not gifted enough to show a link for you for the writings of Justin, but I’m sure that you can find a link on the CA home page. Or perhaps someone more talented at computers than I can supply it. Justin, by the way, was about 200 years before Sacred Scripture was canonized by the RCC.

And yes, the CC does differentiate between small-t and big-T traditions. The big-T Traditions are those matters of faith and dogma that are always believed by the Church (the Incarnation, the inspiration of Holy Scripture, belief in the Real Presence, etc.), while little-t traditions concern themselves w/ disciplinary matters and other customs (do priests wear robes, fasting on Fridays, etc.) Sorry for the length of the reply, but I hope it helps.

Pax Christi,
CathChemNerd


#16

Read this:
lumengentleman.com/index.asp?id=77&reason=0

I know it’s long, but read the whole thing. It’s really good and shows how the way we worship now is Scriptural.


#17

Thank, Genesis315

CathChemNerd


#18

I can’t get the link to work.


#19

[quote=eaglesfeather]Don’t like admitting it took me this long, but I just discovered another belief title given to all non-Catholics.

Doesn’t every possible disagreement between Catholics and other Christians come down to Sola Scriptura? As long as the belief of Sola Scriptura (or disbelief) exists this separation will exist. It is surprising that most of the arguments taking place have leaped over this. Why argue that something isn’t in scripture with anyone that does not believe scripture to be the only word and will of God?

I’m sure there are other threads explaining why to not believe in sola scriptura, but does someone have a complete list of reference scripture (scratching head wondering if this is an ironic request) they could post here as educational to me? Cut & paste or give link? Maybe from both sides? My own reading has turned up little and anyone I know personally messes it all up.

I know, I might have explained some of this wrong. That’s why I’m looking to clarify.

Thanks
[/quote]

Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine that did not even exist until the 16th century. That fact alone should be enough to discredit it. Another is the very fact that it is not explicitly in the bible. Any doctrine that important would have been explicitly in the bible. One would expect to find a statement such as “Scripture Alone is the rule for deciding issues of faith and doctrine”. The closest that you will find is that scripture is profitable for teaching, admonition, and instruction. In fact, there is far more explicit evidence in Scripture for relying on the Church, which Scripture explicitly says is “The Pillar and Foundation of Truth.” Now that’s the kind of unequivocal Scriptural statement you can hang your hat on.

May the Lord richly bless you.

Your brother in Christ.


#20

Not necessarily, Sola Scriptura keeps me from accepting Catholicism yes, but I could reject it and become Eastern Orthodox or reject aspects of it and become Anglican (I’m actually not sure of their stance on it). So yes, many elements are hard to prove sola scriptura, but disproving SS does not prove Catholicism, we’d still have to debate then what other authority is needed besides scripture. (but really, classic SS did believe in the authority of the church it was just “dumbed down” in relation to Rome and Constantinople. And even “solo” scriptura evangelicals believe in two authorities, scripture and themselves as the interpreter.

Yes, I ignored the other posts (for now at least :wink: ) Because I’m working on paper. :smiley:


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.