Posted on 02/12/2015 2:17:57 PM PST by NYer
>
Do you know how to answer a non Catholic Christian who challenges you about the Bible?
Knowing how everybody loves lists, here are ten things every Catholic should know about Sola Scriptura:
1. Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture”. It is the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only source for teaching on doctrine and morality.
2. Sola Scriptura was one of three “solos” the other two being Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
3. Sola Scriptura which means “Scripture Alone” cannot be found in the Bible. The closest proof text is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” While this verse says Scripture is useful for these things it doesn’t say Scripture is the only source for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
4. While Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, in practice they interpret the Bible according to their own denominational traditions. Presbyterians have the Bible plus Calvinism. Baptists have the Bible plus their theological opinions. Lutherans have the Bible plus the teaching of Luther etc.
5. Jesus commanded and prophesied that he would establish a church, but he nowhere commanded or prophesied that a book would be written recording his words and works. This is why Catholics say the Church came first. The Bible came second. Jesus passed his authority on through the apostles–not through a book.
6. How could sola Scriptura be the only way for people to know God when, for most of history, the majority of people could neither read nor have access to books?
7. Protestants blame Catholics for believing late, man made doctrines that the early church had never heard of, but Sola Scriptura had never been heard of before the sixteenth century. Not only can it not be proved from the Bible, but there is no trace of the doctrine of sola Scriptura anywhere in the writings of the early church. The entire edifice of Protestantism, however, is based on the foundation of sola Scriptura.
8. If the only source for teaching and moral instruction comes from the Bible how are we supposed to answer the questions that arise about things that were never heard of in Bible times? How can the Bible instruct us about important current problems like nuclear war, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, gender re-assignment or genetic modification, cloning or a whole range of other modern issues. Only a living and dynamic, Spirit filled authority can sift the facts and come up with the right teaching.
9. Sola Scriptura is linked with the idea of that the Bible is easy enough for any simple person to understand. While the basic teachings seem easy to understand it is clear that the Bible is an extremely complex document which requires the insights of theologians, Bible scholars and linguists to understand clearly. Why else would Protestant pastors be required to go to seminary before being qualified to be pastors?
10. Sola Scriptura has led to the thousands of divisions within Protestantism. Because they couldn’t agree, even from the beginning, the Protestant leaders began to split and form their own sects. How could sola Scriptura be the foundation for the church when it leads to such division? How could this division be part of Jesus command and prayer that there be “one flock and one shepherd”?
bkmk
I would say the Catholic church and its followers are pretty much SOL...
Philippians 2:12 - Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOU OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING.”
I am sure it is convenient to place confidence in a church, but it is not the church that saves. Not any church, Protestant or Catholic.
Well, there is no “approved list”. You are free to draw from any source, so long as it isn’t contradicted by the Word of God.
Never got any answers
You troll this over and over. You know full well what the words “sola scriptura” mean. Whether you belive in it or not.
In the wilderness, Jesus, when tempted by the devil said: “It is wrtten...” 3 times in his recorded responses. He did not say “Tradition says...” “The pharisees say....”. He quoted scripture AND ONLY SCRIPTURE.
Why? He IS the word. The word contained in scripture.
Are the words “sola scriptura” to be found in the bible (scripture)? No.
But neither is the word “Trinity”. Care to take that one on too?
As always, you deny the clear words of Scripture
“Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Greek.”
“After Alexander, Palestine was ruled by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for almost two hundred years. Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_the_New_Testament#Languages_used_in_ancient_Palestine
However, I think we can safely assume that the Son of God could speak whatever language He wished to speak, just as He knew Scripture backwards and forwards without any formal training, and knew the nature of life and mankind better than any trained philosopher of His day.
We shall see, my deluded friend.
OK Ask a question. A real question. Lets have a discussion
Jesus, Next question.
The English word Bible is from the Latin biblia, from the same word in Medieval Latin and Late Latin and ultimately from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia "the books" (singular βιβλίον biblion).
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book), and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book), If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book): And if any man shall take away from the words of the book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book) of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (βιβλίον - biblion - a book).
Not even mentioned ey?
Not rue, there has never been an agreed upon definition due to every prot group wanting to have it's hand in the pot.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
So, Christ wanted to cast aside scripture?
Is that your claim?
He IS scripture.
Your question has been answered ad nauseum, to the point you are becoming a borderline troll.
See Revelation where Jesus, Himself, told John TO WRITE what he was told.
So, you do not believe scripture to be true, to be usefull, or even legitimate.
You support the idea that church doctrine (of the catholic variety) comes only from man, constantly revised to stay ‘relevant’.
How about you answer this. Where in the bible does it say that we should pray to Mary or dead saints.
Expecting crickets on this one.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Prove it.
Greek has masculine and feminine nouns. In Aramaic, there would be no confusion of gender.
The NT was God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired in Greek so whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or not is irrelevant.
You can't base an argument on what someone might have said if they had been speaking another language as it is pure speculation.
And who gave Jimmy the authority to define Sola Scriptura? Seriously I don’t recall the heavens opening up and God saying that Jimmy could make this decision. When and where did Jimmy’s authority come from? Be specific.
Prove it.
Do not go beyond what is written was written by the apostle Paul. Explain to me where "oral tradition" is in Do not go beyond what is written?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.