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”?
Sorry, but the European view on the RCC being The Church is just hogwash. Several Followers of the Way were around far before the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, by way of example, the St. Thomas Christians in India (pre-Portuguese influence) is far older than the Catholic Church and traces itself to 52AD.
There are plenty of examples on the “Posts 51-100” page of the thread at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255436/posts
Just as one representative sample.
I keep asking this question. Never get an answer.
We see with our own preconceptions. The early churches were encouraged to read the letters of the apostles and to trade their letters between them. Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, 1 Timothy 4:13, Revelation 1:3.
Even in the scriptures themselves, we see that the early churches had some of the new testament scriptures already.
Now if you believe the present Roman Catholic Church has the same authority as the apostles, then no additional verses I show will mean anything. But consider the qualification for inclusion into the Bible canon. One qualification was that the book had to be written by a apostles or a direct student. If full authority passed from apostles to the next generation of apostles, why was this limitation imposed?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Now with your preconceptions, if the current Roman Catholic Church has apostolic teaching authority, then neither of the above verses mean anything. But if we are to stand firm in the apostolic teaching, why did the creators of the canon limit the apostolic scriptures to the writings of the apostles and their direct students?
I keep telling you that question is based on a false premise. I won’t be baited into answering such a fallacious question.
If you want an answer, you’re going to need to ask a proper question. Again, I’ll be happen to explain why the question is based on a false premise, if you are interested, but you don’t really seem to be interested in that so far.
Who the heck cares about the European view? I follow Jesus. Not European men who changed the Church 1,500 years after the Jewish carpenter founded HIS CHURCH!
The Catholics have the complete Bible.
Well, I did a search of that page for “sola” and only found 1 post referencing it, from a Catholic. So, I am unclear as to which posts on that page you are talking about. Could you point out one or two, so that we are on the same page?
The 'false premise' you claim is Scripture.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mat 28:18-20
Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church. They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries, like Protestantism, but we can be confident in Christ’s promise that the Church He established will always teach the Truth.
In that particular discsussion I’m referring to the repeated demands by RnMomof7 for scriptural references to assertions by Catholic posters.
There are many others scattered around.
The amusing thing is that whenever a scriptural reference is actually provided, the response is “That doesn’t mean what you say it means”, or “You’re cherry-picking’.
“The ‘false premise’ you claim is Scripture.”
How can you make that claim if you haven’t bothered to ask me what the false premise I am referring to is? (Despite me offering to explain it to you several times)
Once again, you’re just talking to yourself. If you want to do that, fine, but leave me out of it.
So Protestants are headed for that Other Place if they die as Protestants?
So tell us what it does mean, citing sources.
I really don't understand this statement. Are you saying Scripture is false?
I really want a dialogue
““And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”
If by “upon this rock” Christ meant Peter, why didn’t he say, “and upon you I will build my church”? As I understand it, when Christ mentioned Peter, the New Testament used the masculine Greek word “Petros”, and when He said “upon this rock”, He used the feminine version “Petra”.
You are changing the subject. Where is sola scriptura is the Bible?
Where did Christ say His Church would be based on a book? Or a collection of letters?
Sigh. Yes, but "us" does not mean what you think it means. "us" does not mean the Roman Catholic Church, "us" means the apostles, as in the original apostles.
This is why, when the canon was created, only books written by the apostles and their direct students were included. If the "us" meant the current apostles and all future generations of apostles, the creation of the canon would have used different criteria.
Besides, if the verse meant what you imply, it would have been written differently, such as instead of "which you were taught by us" would have been written "which you are taught by us and our successors" or something more explicit, all inclusive, and far reaching.
Besides, beside, how do you reconcile Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed? How are we to judge the preaching of the gospel without a normative rule to measure against?
Besides, besides, besides, if the "us" in 2 Thess 2:15 is the Roman Catholic Church, then the "we" in Gal 1:8 is also the Roman Catholic Church. If this is so, why does the Roman Catholic Church says that we have no need to judge or evaluate their preaching, simply accepts that they can not err? The original apostles said to watch out for those who preach a different gospel, even themselves or angels. The Roman Catholic Church says, don't worry, just accepts what we say. Big difference.
I don't know God's plan. But I'd be afraid of following other than HIS plan
Jesus spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. Greek has masculine and feminine nouns. In Aramaic, there would be no confusion of gender.
**And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).**
BTTT!
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.