The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bible

[biblecatholic]

some christians say “all I need is the bibleâ€Â,â€ÂIt interprets itself†but yet in a square mile there are 5 churches teaching different doctrines (interpretations by men,of the scriptures), or if a church gets a new preacher he can change the interpretation if he likes,. Sola Scriptura is the foundation and yet it does not even exist in the bible. And all it has caused is division. And every joe off the street to be in infallible interpreter. There are now 55,000 denominations and growing weekly by 5. Christ said to be one like He and the Father are one. Do Jesus and the Father agree on everything or do they just agree on “the major points†does Christ sow union or division?

The questions id like to ask are
1) if the “bible aloneâ€Âdoctrine is the true, why is it not in the bible?
2) if the bible “interprets itselfâ€Â, why is that not in the bible?
3) where in the bible does it say what books belong in the bible?
4) where did Jesus say all of what He taught is in the bible?
5) how do you know the bible is inspired, from the bible?
6)when did Jesus say on this rock I will build my churches?
7)why didnt paul tell the ethiopian to “just pray to the Holy Spirit†and you’ll understand scripture, instead of showing him the proper interpretation?(acts 8:31)
8)if the you pray to the Holy Spirit and infallibly understand the bible, why do you have seminaries?
9)how can you say an interpretation is wrong when everyone is free to interpret after praying?
The JW’s, mormans believe in Jesus but interpret that Jesus is not God since “Trinity†is not in the bible and since my church defined the term and the bible they frown on it. Even the Muslims believe in Jesus(as a prophet) but they interpret the scriptures tobe corrupted. They use the “Sola Scriptura†method of reading the bible.

 

[cyberjosh]

Aren't you forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit in helping you understand the Scriptures? And even if you do misinterpret it, it does not and should not reflect negatively back upon the Bible, for the error lies not in the Bible but in human understanding.

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Well said Josh.

This topic has been discussed "to death". 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

Well said Josh.

This topic has been discussed "to death". 8-)

But purgatory and Mary has not?

If these subjects are fair game, and re-occuring on a monthly basis, then explain why Sola Scriptura is the Hindu sacred cow?

Catholics aren't the ones who begin these repetitive posts on purgatory. And believe me, the ones who begin them are not "curious". They are not open to hear what leads the Catholic to believe "x" or "y". They are out to grind an axe with any Catholic who happens to respond. Case in point is the long post from Mr. Geisler's apologetic anti-catholic book. How coincidental that such a post has been loaded into the breach to fire away at the poor Catholic who tries to respond by explaining their faith...

Frankly, I tire of these attacks. The worse you can say is that purgatory is not explicitly found in YOUR Scriptures - but then, neither is the Trinity. Neither is Mary's other "biological sons" that Protestants seem to be so sure existed...

What you forget is that we don't believe in Sola Scriptura! Thus, what is the point of bringing all of this up??? We believe in the teachings of the Apostlic Church established by Christ - teachings that include oral and written teachings. Thus, why do you try to subject Catholics to your self-imposed reduction of the Word of God?

Regards

 

[biblecatholic]

Aren't you forgetting the role of the Holy Spirit in helping you understand the Scriptures? And even if you do misinterpret it, it does not and should not reflect negatively back upon the Bible, for the error lies not in the Bible but in human understanding.

~Josh

the Holy Spirit leads us to the Truth. if we are open to it..... bad interpretation doesnt reflect bad on the bible just on the tradition of sola scriptura,

 

[jgredline]

Frankly, I tire of these attacks. The worse you can say is that purgatory is not explicitly found in YOUR Scriptures - but then, neither is the Trinity. Neither is Mary's other "biological sons" that Protestants seem to be so sure existed...

Your right....PART of our statement of beliefs is that we hold to the 66 books of the bible...If you tire of this, I am sure there are plenty of catholic forums out there....But we will not compromise the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures....

 

[Veritas]

Consider how Jesus replied to the Devil.

IT IS WRITTEN...Matthew 4:1-11

If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.

I will do the same.

 

[biblecatholic]

Your right....PART of our statement of beliefs is that we hold to the 66 books of the bible...If you tire of this, I am sure there are plenty of catholic forums out there....But we will not compromise the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures....

are you kidding me????? the truth as you PERSONALLY see the scriptures?. the first thing is that there wasnt a protestant bible till the 1600s. when a man made his own private interpretation(2 pet 1:20) . why hold on to our new testament since you chose your own old testament? everyone says that they have the truth, lets see ,we have 55000 and growing weekly ,churches that believe ""what the bible really says(according to them)", we also have the JWs and the mormans that say they have the truth and they deny Christ as God, and who knows what the next big trend will be in our society, only time will tell.

every single interpretation is thought to be true by the believer. everybody brings their eyes to the table thats why there is ls so many denoms. who has the authority to interpret scripture and who is it and why?

p.s. can someone answer those 9 questions i asked about?

 

[Veritas]

Also, consider Pauls advice to Corinth when they were having divisions in the early church between he and Apollos:

Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benifit, so that you may learn of the saying "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 1 Corinthians 4:6

I encourage you to read the context of this verse starting in Chapter 3

Especially this:

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11

and this:

So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world of life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23

 

[biblecatholic]

Consider how Jesus replied to the Devil.

IT IS WRITTEN...Matthew 4:1-11

If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.

I will do the same.

you do know He is talking about the old testament?
the books of the new testament came after the christian church started. the bible is a big chunk of oral tradition written down. but not all (jn 21:25)2 thess 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the tradition we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[biblecatholic]

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 3:11

and this:

So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world of life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23

so why did reformers make their own foundation?

 

[Veritas]

The reformers intent was to look all the way back to Jesus Christ (THE WORD) as the foundation. And they saw the Catholic church as "in the way".

I do too. I respect the Catholic church, have read many Catholic authors, and think many of the basics of faith are there, but I see "extra stuff" getting in the way of a personal relationship between Jesus and I.

I have a one on one relationship with Jesus. Not through someone else. Just me and Him. And yes, it is personal. And if you think about it, it's personal for everybody. Its just going to be between you and He on judgement day.

 

[stranger]

Re: The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bib

some christians say “all I need is the bibleâ€Â,â€ÂIt interprets itself†but yet in a square mile there are 5 churches teaching different doctrines (interpretations by men,of the scriptures), or if a church gets a new preacher he can change the interpretation if he likes,. Sola Scriptura is the foundation and yet it does not even exist in the bible. And all it has caused is division. And every joe off the street to be in infallible interpreter. There are now 55,000 denominations and growing weekly by 5. Christ said to be one like He and the Father are one. Do Jesus and the Father agree on everything or do they just agree on “the major points†does Christ sow union or division?

The questions id like to ask are
1) if the “bible aloneâ€Âdoctrine is the true, why is it not in the bible?
2) if the bible “interprets itselfâ€Â, why is that not in the bible?
3) where in the bible does it say what books belong in the bible?
4) where did Jesus say all of what He taught is in the bible?
5) how do you know the bible is inspired, from the bible?
6)when did Jesus say on this rock I will build my churches?
7)why didnt paul tell the ethiopian to “just pray to the Holy Spirit†and you’ll understand scripture, instead of showing him the proper interpretation?(acts 8:31)
8)if the you pray to the Holy Spirit and infallibly understand the bible, why do you have seminaries?
9)how can you say an interpretation is wrong when everyone is free to interpret after praying?
The JW’s, mormans believe in Jesus but interpret that Jesus is not God since “Trinity†is not in the bible and since my church defined the term and the bible they frown on it. Even the Muslims believe in Jesus(as a prophet) but they interpret the scriptures to be corrupted. They use the “Sola Scriptura†method of reading the bible.

Hi biblecatholic,

A few remarks by way of response. For many Protestants the local church that is either independent or in league with like minded churches accounts for the proferred 55,000 denominations. The so called main stream denominations such as Lutheran(?), Baptist, Presbyterian, Anglican. . . account numerically for the majority of Protestants. But it is always the local assembly that important and this in itself reflects what a church is - 'an assembly' of the saints. For this reason in the scriptures you will find neither the words Catholic nor Protestant but . . . the church at Corinth or the church at other locations.

Now some comments:

1. Bible alone / scripture alone is derivative of a number of texts - man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. The Protestant understanding of 'living by every word' is exclusive as it is inclusive.

2. Again 'interpretation' is found in scripture of earlier scripture by way of comment. But this is not as stand alone as you might suppose. Without the Holy Spirits assistance we are no better interpreters than the scribes or pharisees. The man counts for something as does a conformity with what the church has always believed.


3. The OT we have. Our Lord gave His stamp of approval. The NT we have from the apostles or close associates. The argument for recognising the books that were to be the Canon of scripture - is different to the church deciding which book is the word of God and which isn't. The protestants believe that in their perspective the authority remains with God in the word of God. So for Protestants the authority of the church is subservient to the word of God and hence God.

4. Nowhere, if all the things He said and did were recorded - then we would have a truly vast resource of literature.

5. Generally 2 Timothy 3:16 is quoted. But like most people who read and later study it - it is also a growing realisation.

6. singular 'church'. Call it the bride of Christ or the church universal or some even refer to the invisible church. The local church as a location where the saints meet goes a long way to answer this point. Church is the word 'assembly' and an assembly is a collection of believers (in this instance). The NT only knows the church as assemblies at: Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc. All these are physical locations.

7. Because Paul was an apostle chosen by God and he was rather well versed in the OT as well as the new (of which he wrote the majority).

8. Praying to the Holy Spirit is also an act of faith. The Holy Spirit is the Teacher that will lead any believer into truth. The existential experience of this is really no different in practice amongst Catholics who seek to be taught this way by God. Teachers are also appointed by God to teach. . .

Seminaries are for learning, teaching as well as private study, and off course for preparation for ministry.

9. We can say an interpretation is wrong on many grounds, sometimes it is only a question of perspective or different emphasis, at other times the interpretation offered contradicts the plain sense of the text or other parts of scripture, or what the church has always believed.

If I look at the Catholic church - I am confident of finding a contemporary diversity of interpretation as well as a historical diversity. In groups this can be illustrated by emphasis between eg. charismatic catholics as well non charismatic catholics.

Much of what we are discussing concerns the historical development of the church, its practise, and its doctrine over time. Many of the terms and categories are indeed not found in scripture - there is a danger to be so far removed from the foundations once laid by the apostles.

 

[stranger]

francisdesales

But purgatory and Mary has not?

If these subjects are fair game, and re-occuring on a monthly basis, then explain why Sola Scriptura is the Hindu sacred cow?

Catholics aren't the ones who begin these repetitive posts on purgatory. And believe me, the ones who begin them are not "curious". They are not open to hear what leads the Catholic to believe "x" or "y". They are out to grind an axe with any Catholic who happens to respond. Case in point is the long post from Mr. Geisler's apologetic anti-catholic book. How coincidental that such a post has been loaded into the breach to fire away at the poor Catholic who tries to respond by explaining their faith...

Frankly, I tire of these attacks. The worse you can say is that purgatory is not explicitly found in YOUR Scriptures - but then, neither is the Trinity. Neither is Mary's other "biological sons" that Protestants seem to be so sure existed...

Some Protestants lack finesse . . .Read on. . .

What you forget is that we don't believe in Sola Scriptura! Thus, what is the point of bringing all of this up??? We believe in the teachings of the Apostlic Church established by Christ - teachings that include oral and written teachings.

If the date was 100AD I would be as you are minus what transpired historically in the 2nd century onwards. If you can be the Christian of 100AD and I do likewise then there will be meaningful dialogue.

Thus, why do you try to subject Catholics to your self-imposed reduction of the Word of God?

Whoever you are referring to is a protestant. The self imposed reduction has to do with the level of teaching to which he, as an individual, is committed to. What you speak of often lies outside the realm of his experience; he has also heard about/ or been taught about Catholism by Protestants.

Its good that you still perserve in this way.

 

[Heidi]

Re: The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bib

some christians say “all I need is the bibleâ€Â,â€ÂIt interprets itself†but yet in a square mile there are 5 churches teaching different doctrines (interpretations by men,of the scriptures), or if a church gets a new preacher he can change the interpretation if he likes,. Sola Scriptura is the foundation and yet it does not even exist in the bible. And all it has caused is division. And every joe off the street to be in infallible interpreter. There are now 55,000 denominations and growing weekly by 5. Christ said to be one like He and the Father are one. Do Jesus and the Father agree on everything or do they just agree on “the major points†does Christ sow union or division?

The questions id like to ask are
1) if the “bible aloneâ€Âdoctrine is the true, why is it not in the bible?
2) if the bible “interprets itselfâ€Â, why is that not in the bible?
3) where in the bible does it say what books belong in the bible?
4) where did Jesus say all of what He taught is in the bible?
5) how do you know the bible is inspired, from the bible?
6)when did Jesus say on this rock I will build my churches?
7)why didnt paul tell the ethiopian to “just pray to the Holy Spirit†and you’ll understand scripture, instead of showing him the proper interpretation?(acts 8:31)
8)if the you pray to the Holy Spirit and infallibly understand the bible, why do you have seminaries?
9)how can you say an interpretation is wrong when everyone is free to interpret after praying?
The JW’s, mormans believe in Jesus but interpret that Jesus is not God since “Trinity†is not in the bible and since my church defined the term and the bible they frown on it. Even the Muslims believe in Jesus(as a prophet) but they interpret the scriptures to be corrupted. They use the “Sola Scriptura†method of reading the bible.

Sorry but you're in error. 2 Corinthians 11:4 tells us that if someone preaches a different gospel than the one they preached, he is a false apostle. So any teaching that disagrees with the bible is a lie. It's that simple.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: The Bible Aloneâ€ÂSola Scriptura†But thats not in the bib

Sorry but you're in error. 2 Corinthians 11:4 tells us that if someone preaches a different gospel than the one they preached, he is a false apostle. So any teaching that disagrees with the bible is a lie. It's that simple.

You are making a big assumption there, Heidi. Where does it say anything about the Bible = Gospel in 2 Cor 11:4? Paul's Gospel included EVERYTHING he taught, both orally and in written form, as per 2 Thes 2:15.

The Gospel is the Good News, the teachings of the Apostles. It is related in the Scriptures, but not CONFINED to the Scriptures. That is presumed by your statement, but not spoken of in Scriptures. As a matter of fact, it says the opposite...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The reformers intent was to look all the way back to Jesus Christ (THE WORD) as the foundation. And they saw the Catholic church as "in the way".

I do too. I respect the Catholic church, have read many Catholic authors, and think many of the basics of faith are there, but I see "extra stuff" getting in the way of a personal relationship between Jesus and I.

I have a one on one relationship with Jesus. Not through someone else. Just me and Him. And yes, it is personal. And if you think about it, it's personal for everybody. Its just going to be between you and He on judgement day.

I can appreciate what you say, but one should NOT dispose of the community. We are the Body of Christ. We have been given gifts for the purpose of OTHERS, not for ourselves. Yes, continue with the personal relationship. However, the "extra stuff", as you call it, helps us come closer to Christ when seen in the correct light.

There is no requirement that I say the rosary, for example, to be a Catholic. The Church provides it to us to aid in our walk. Saints of the past have sworn by it. We don't have to do it, but it is beneficial. Use it or not. I personally present it that way when I teach other Catholics. For some people, it will be a very useful form of prayer. For others, such as myself, I prefer the Divine Hours, which is a prayerful reading of the Psalms and other Scripture reading. That's me. The "extra stuff" are not requirements that must be followed to enter heaven. They are all aids to develop our spirituality.

Hope that helps.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Some Protestants lack finesse .

LOL. Trust me, so do some Catholics.

If the date was 100AD I would be as you are minus what transpired historically in the 2nd century onwards. If you can be the Christian of 100AD and I do likewise then there will be meaningful dialogue.

Well, we are trying to do that, I think. Of course, our knowledge is not as much as we'd like. If we use a basic premise, that God guides His Church, then we can believe that we have legitimate development of our concepts of what God has told us. Things like the Marian doctrines are a development of concepts of the first centuries. I have done a lot of reading on the development of doctrine, as I am interested in how we got to "Purgatory" and so forth (I don't think it was taught "as-is" by the Apostles, but the background was). Later generations took the understanding of what was taught and continued to develop it.

While some may disapprove of this development, I think it is perfectly normal. Protestants also have development of doctrine as their understanding of Scriptures increase. Many men have meditated on what has been given and have tried to put together an understanding of what God has revealed to mankind. Most certainly, Paul didn't KNOW everything that God wanted to reveal to mankind. I see God's revelation as a kernel that grows, like the parable of the mustard seed. Again, we believe that the Spirit CONTINUES to guide the Church, not just the first generation.

What is interesting, in my reading of the Fathers of the second century, is that we HAVE the beginnings of what you would call "catholic" doctrines. The Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, purgatory, saints and prayers, even some Marian doctrines, the trinity, and so forth. I see them in the writings of Ignatius, Justin the Martyr, the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ireneaus, and so forth. Even some of the other writings, such as Shepherd of Hermas give us an idea of what Christians believed in at the time. That is why I think more Christians SHOULD read the Fathers of the first few centuries. Then, a person could better judge what THOSE first Christians thought about the teachings of the Apostles, both oral and written.

What you speak of often lies outside the realm of his experience; he has also heard about/ or been taught about Catholism by Protestants.

That, unfortunately, can be a problem, because Protestant teachings of Catholicism generally are not given in the proper perspective. The teachings of the Church are like an amazing web, intricately interconnected. Get rid of the Marian doctrines, you do damage to the ENTIRE faith. That is why the Church was so adamant about maintaining Mary as the Mother of God. Removing this understanding lessened who JESUS was, so those men of the 400's thought they were more correctly defining what we believed at the time - especially with regards to Jesus. This example shows that one should not lightly "pick apart" the various definitions made long ago. There is an interconnection of the faith's doctrines.

Again, thanks for your responses. I appreciate your input and trying to bring this forum to a more civil atmosphere. I have never said that a Protestant was unsaved because they were not Catholic. The Church, nor I, do not believe that concept. I was beginning to feel that way from the other direction...

Brother in Christ

 

[golfjack]

reply

Why do we have the Bible? It's really a big letter written to us from God. It's really all about our Lord Jesus Christ and how He came down from heaven to save the world. It's a bloody Bible. It tells us how we can be saved from the wrath of God. It's an instruction book on how we can live Godly lives. And it's God love letter written to us. Having said this, today we see many people going to church that don't carry a Bible and of course we have many that do. I have visited churches where people don't bring a Bible with them. On the other hand we have some in other countries like China, India, and others that are being killed for having a Bible with them. Do you get the picture?

Let's go down history lane a bit. It was during the second century A. D. that latin first began to replace Greek as the dominant language of the Roman Empire. It was then that the need for a Latin Bible becamme apparent. There were a few translations of the Old Testament into latin at that time, but these were not considered reliable, since they were translated from the Septuagint and not the original Hebrew. Since the New Testament was originally in Greek, there were also a few translations of it as well, which were a little better accepted. But the need for one complete and authorized Bible to replace all these competing translations soon became apparent. It was then that Damasus, bishop of Rome ( 366-384), appointed his secretary, Jerome, to undertake this translation. He completed his translation in A. D. 405. Jerome's translation of the Bible is known as the Latiin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate is especially important because it was the first Bible to arrive in Western Europe, and it remained the accepted version in this part of the world for centuries. In fact, it was not until the twentieth century that any Bible translation besides the Latin Vulgate was recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

Do I believe in Sola scriptural? You bet. But I am grateful for the people who put the Bible together for our benefit. Also grateful for various English translations and for the work of many to write it down in various languages. An Evangelist's job is made much easier because of the Bible.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

Why do we have the Bible? It's really a big letter written to us from God. It's really all about our Lord Jesus Christ and how He came down from heaven to save the world. It's a bloody Bible. It tells us how we can be saved from the wrath of God. It's an instruction book on how we can live Godly lives. And it's God love letter written to us. Having said this, today we see many people going to church that don't carry a Bible and of course we have many that do. I have visited churches where people don't bring a Bible with them. On the other hand we have some in other countries like China, India, and others that are being killed for having a Bible with them. Do you get the picture?

Well, you started out well, but then the end? Yes, the Bible is all of that. But are you saying that one must be literate to be saved? One must read for themselves a 2000 page book before learning about God? Boy, I feel sorry for those BILLIONS of people through the ages who didn't read the bible for themselves, and as a result, are roasting in hell, if I follow what you are saying. Do you get the picture?

As an aside, if you remember from you days as a Catholic, the Missal has lots of Bible readings in there - OT, Psalms, Gospels, NT. It all comes from the Bible.

Let's go down history lane a bit. It was during the second century A. D. that latin first began to replace Greek as the dominant language of the Roman Empire.

Only in the Western half of the Empire. If you recall from your history, the Roman Empire was for practical purposes, two empires only a short time after Christianity began. Culturally, the East and West were not interchangeable.

It was then that the need for a Latin Bible becamme apparent. There were a few translations of the Old Testament into latin at that time, but these were not considered reliable, since they were translated from the Septuagint and not the original Hebrew.

There you go again with your Protestant-molded mind. The Apostles consulted the Septuagint and quoted from it MANY MORE times then the Hebrew. Apparently, the Hebrew and the Greek OT were BOTH considered as inspired. If Hebrew was such a sacred language, why didn't the Jewish apostles write in Hebrew?

Since the New Testament was originally in Greek, there were also a few translations of it as well, which were a little better accepted. But the need for one complete and authorized Bible to replace all these competing translations soon became apparent. It was then that Damasus, bishop of Rome ( 366-384), appointed his secretary, Jerome, to undertake this translation. He completed his translation in A. D. 405. Jerome's translation of the Bible is known as the Latiin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate is especially important because it was the first Bible to arrive in Western Europe, and it remained the accepted version in this part of the world for centuries. In fact, it was not until the twentieth century that any Bible translation besides the Latin Vulgate was recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

That's not true. The Vulgate is the OFFICIAL version, but not the only accepted version. The Douay Rheims version was written in the 1600's, before the KJV, and was accepted as a legitimate English bible.

But I am grateful for the people who put the Bible together for our benefit. Also grateful for various English translations and for the work of many to write it down in various languages. An Evangelist's job is made much easier because of the Bible.

That is true. ALL of our jobs are made easier with the Sacred Scriptures.

Regards