The Catholic Church and sola scriptura

[BobRyan]

There is another thread that is so general in its topic regarding the RCC that almost anything would qualify. I am taking one subject from it for this thread. That subject is "sola scriptura".

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

2. A question: I notice that while many Christians affirm this principle of "sola scriptura" Catholics will almost always oppose it "right out of the gate". Which is strange since all Christians are "supposed" to be saying "sure we support sola-scriptura testing because our church doctrine is perfectly in line with the Bible".

Here is a post to show the state of the conversation so far.

===================================================
One earlier post suggested the wild speculation that the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" is mere "fairy tale" -- it got this response

Why would men have been willing to be martyred for this "fairy tale"? You need to sit down and ask yourself some tough questions. And then turn away from the fantasies created by the Catholic Church.

Good point.

No wonder the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura"

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

Nothing you have written here supports sola scripture

Do you expect that we would agree with that speculative statement you are making? You have free will of course and can have any preference that you wish. But if you want to frame it as a compelling argument in favor of you POV you need substance in it - by addressing the details in the post.

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"

How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The Bible doesn't say any of that. "Bible alone" theology is a man made tradition, it isn't found anywhere in the Bible.

On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ

Funny - that's NOT what the Bible says. NOWHERE does the Bible teach the fairy tale that is Sola Scriptura.

On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition

 

[Episkopos]

What are we to test the spirits against? Can you say...the bible?

 

[Enoch111]

What are we to test the spirits against? Can you say...the bible?

Essentially against (a) the Word of God (the Bible) and (b) the doctrine of Christ, which is spelled out in the Word of God.

1 JOHN 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The doctrine of Christ is the litmus test for separating spirits not from God (speaking through false prophets, as well as false teachers and false apostles) from spirits which are from God.

So what does it mean when John says "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?We go back to the Gospel of John for a proper understanding of this statement.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

In plain English what this means is that "the Word" (who is both God and Jesus Christ, as well as the only begotten Son of God) took upon Himself a human body and lived among men, that the apostles saw His glory (primarily at the Transfiguration, but also in everything else), and that everything He said and did was full of grace and truth.

It is critical to note that John begins this passage by showing us that:
1. Jesus was always eternal (not a created being)
2. That Jesus was with God the Father from eternity past
3. That Jesus was and is GOD (THEOS)
4. That Jesus is the Creator of the universe, not a creature.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)

So Christians must turn to the written Word of God to determine the true doctrine of Christ (the Word), and then test the spirits with this simple question: "Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and also fully sinless Man?" Those who refuse to believe this have the spirit of antichrist, and are not of God, according to John.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is another thread that is so general in its topic regarding the RCC that almost anything would qualify. I am taking one subject from it for this thread. That subject is "sola scriptura".

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

2. A question: I notice that while many Christians affirm this principle of "sola scriptura" Catholics will almost always oppose it "right out of the gate". Which is strange since all Christians are "supposed" to be saying "sure we support sola-scriptura testing because our church doctrine is perfectly in line with the Bible".

Here is a post to show the state of the conversation so far.
===================================================
One earlier post suggested the wild speculation that the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" is mere "fairy tale" -- it got this response
Good point.
No wonder the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura"

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

First of all - NONE of these verses have ANYTHING to do with Sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11 is about the Bereans testing what Paul was telling them about Jesus to see if he was telling the truth. Searching the Scriptures doesn't make you a Sola Scripturist. The Catholic Church backs up every doctrine with Scripture - but does NOT hold to the man-made doctrine Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Scriptures are our SOLE Authority. The Bible squashes that position (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

In Mark 7:6-13, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that THEY have nullified the Word of God with THEIR impositions on the people because God never gave them the Authority to do so.
Jesus DID, however, give His Church that Authority -= that WHATEVER it ordained on earth would also be ordained in Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

These verses have absolutely NOTHING to do with Sola Scriptura.
Isaiah 8:20 is about consulting the Word of God. NOWHERE does it say that we are ONLY to consult His written Word.

Jesus and the NT writers didn't even hold to this man-made doctrine . . .

Isaiah 8:20 is about consulting the Word of God. NOWHERE does it say that we are ONLY to consult His written Word. Jesus and the NT writers didn't even hold to this man-made doctrine.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Shall I go on??

 

[aspen]

There is another thread that is so general in its topic regarding the RCC that almost anything would qualify. I am taking one subject from it for this thread. That subject is "sola scriptura".

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

2. A question: I notice that while many Christians affirm this principle of "sola scriptura" Catholics will almost always oppose it "right out of the gate". Which is strange since all Christians are "supposed" to be saying "sure we support sola-scriptura testing because our church doctrine is perfectly in line with the Bible".

Here is a post to show the state of the conversation so far.

===================================================
One earlier post suggested the wild speculation that the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" is mere "fairy tale" -- it got this response



Good point.

No wonder the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura"

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."



Do you expect that we would agree with that speculative statement you are making? You have free will of course and can have any preference that you wish. But if you want to frame it as a compelling argument in favor of you POV you need substance in it - by addressing the details in the post.

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"

How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”



On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ



On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition

Does this include Mark chapter 16?

 

[BobRyan]

Does this include Mark chapter 16?

Not sure what your question is -- are you asking if Mark 7 includes Mark 16?

 

[Enoch111]

Does this include Mark chapter 16?

Mark 16 is authentic Scripture, just like the rest of the Gospel of Mark. If you have any doubts read and study The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by John William Burgon. He had to write a book to prove that this passage is Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

2. A question: I notice that while many Christians affirm this principle of "sola scriptura" Catholics will almost always oppose it "right out of the gate". Which is strange since all Christians are "supposed" to be saying "sure we support sola-scriptura testing because our church doctrine is perfectly in line with the Bible".

Here is a post to show the state of the conversation so far.

===================================================
One earlier post suggested the wild speculation that the Bible teaching on "sola scriptura" is mere "fairy tale" -- it got this response

Why would men have been willing to be martyred for this "fairy tale"? You need to sit down and ask yourself some tough questions. And then turn away from the fantasies created by the Catholic Church.

Good point.

No wonder the Bible so strongly affirms "sola scriptura"

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

Nothing you have written here supports sola scripture

Do you expect that we would agree with that speculative statement you are making? You have free will of course and can have any preference that you wish. But if you want to frame it as a compelling argument in favor of you POV you need substance in it - by addressing the details in the post.

Acts 17:11 "They searched THE SCRIPTUREs daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul - WERE SO"

How is that NOT - "Sola Scriptura"???

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The Bible doesn't say any of that. "Bible alone" theology is a man made tradition, it isn't found anywhere in the Bible.

On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition.
2. How is that NOT calling the Word of God = Commandment of God = Moses said.
3. How is that NOT sola-scriptura hammering the tradition of the accepted magesterium of the nation-church that GOD started at Sinai - in the days of Christ

Funny - that's NOT what the Bible says. NOWHERE does the Bible teach the fairy tale that is Sola Scriptura.

On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition

First of all - NONE of these verses have ANYTHING to do with Sola Scriptura.

On the contrary --

1. How is that NOT "sola scriptura" testing tradition??

You have framed your response in a kind of "by faith alone" fashion just then.

Acts 17:11 is about the Bereans testing what Paul was telling them about Jesus to see if he was telling the truth.

Does not help your point.

1. The Bereans were not Christians and yet EVEN they had the ability to test "sola scriptura" to "SEE IF" the doctrine was true.
2. The Bereans were testing the doctrine of a living Apostle. Not just "anyone" -- and affirmed in scripture for doing so.
3. The result of the "testing" sola scriptura would determine if they accepted or rejected all of Christianity - - not merely testing "one tradition within Christianity".

Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Scriptures are our SOLE Authority.

Correction.

Opening post.

Point 1

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

 

[BobRyan]

Mark 16 is authentic Scripture, just like the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

I have never questioned that.

 

[Enoch111]

I have never questioned that.

Correct. It was Aspen who had doubts.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

I think you have shot your argument in the foot with that post about Matthew 23.

In Matthew 23 Jesus said that the Jewish leaders, the church magesterium of Christ's day "have seated themselves" in the "seat of Moses" and say "Therefore do what they tell you to do"... Then points out that they have made those they evangelize "twice the son of hell as yourself".

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That is not a case of Christ "defending" the tradition of the magisterium. It is a case of Christ condemning not only the teaching of the magisterium but the entire magisterium itself.

Matthew 15
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?


Matt 16
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Does not help your point.

1. The Bereans were not Christians and yet EVEN they had the ability to test "sola scriptura" to "SEE IF" the doctrine was true.
2. The Bereans were testing the doctrine of a living Apostle. Not just "anyone" -- and affirmed in scripture for doing so.
3. The result of the "testing" sola scriptura would determine if they accepted or rejected all of Christianity - - not merely testing "one tradition within Christianity".

Correction.
Opening post.
Point 1

1. Defining Terms: Sola Scriptura means "All tradition and doctrine to be tested by the Bible to see IF it is in line with scripture or if scripture shows it to be error, or fluff, or true".

The problem that you Protestant have is that you can't even agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura.
YOUR definition above in RED is NOT the classic definition which states that the Scriptures are our SOLE Authority.

The Bible itself disagrees with this definition by stating that Christ's CHURCH is the Final Authority on earth (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Lunke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23). As a matter of fact - the Scriptures themselves NEVER declare that the Scriptures are the Sole OR Final Authority.

Finally - and as I have already indicated - EVERY Catholic doctrine is supported by Scripture - so your point is moot. I suggest you crack open the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think you have shot your argument in the foot with that post about Matthew 23.

In Matthew 23 Jesus said that the Jewish leaders, the church magesterium of Christ's day "have seated themselves" in the "seat of Moses" and say "Therefore do what they tell you to do"... Then points out that they have made those they evangelize "twice the son of hell as yourself".

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That is not a case of Christ "defending" the tradition of the magisterium. It is a case of Christ condemning not only the teaching of the magisterium but the entire magisterium itself.

Matthew 15
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matt 16
11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Once again - you paste verses without understanding them.

Not only did Jesus NOT condemns Oral Tradition - He PRACTICED it - as did the rest of the NT writers. I gave you a laundry list of verses that illustrate this - and you have only responded to ONE - and have done so out of context.

Jesus acknowledged Moses's seat of Authority and was telling the people to do what the Pharisees told them to do BECAUSE of that seat of Authority - ALL the while, He was pointing out their hypocrisy.

 

[Enoch111]

Finally - and as I have already indicated - EVERY Catholic doctrine is supported by Scripture - so your point is moot. I suggest you crack open the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see for yourself . . .

This is rich. If it were true there would have been no need for the Reformation. The Five Solas were the very heart of the Reformation and they were rejected by the Catholic Church. And the CCC is chock full of false doctrines. Every non-Catholic should take some time to examine its fallacies.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is rich. If it were true there would have been no need for the Reformation. The Five Solas were the very heart of the Reformation and they were rejected by the Catholic Church. And the CCC is chock full of false doctrines. Every non-Catholic should take some time to examine its fallacies.

Then NAME one.

 

[Philip James]

Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and also fully sinless Man?" Those who refuse to believe this have the spirit of antichrist, and are not of God, according to John.

Very Catholic of you...

Peace!

 

[brakelite]

Then NAME one.

What would be the point? You would defend it on the basis of tradition. There would be no other defense. Even Protestants hold false doctrines based on Catholic tradition. Protestants arguing on this thread are shooting themselves in the foot every time they put finger to key.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What would be the point? You would defend it on the basis of tradition. There would be no other defense. Even Protestants hold false doctrines based on Catholic tradition. Protestants arguing on this thread are shooting themselves in the foot every time they put finger to key.

The point is that I can provide Scriptural proof for what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years.

As for Tradition - the Canon of Scripture itself is a Tradition . . .

 

[brakelite]

The point is that I can provide Scriptural proof for what the Catholic Church has taught for 2000 years.

As for Tradition - the Canon of Scripture itself is a Tradition . . .

scriptural proof for everything the RCC has taught for the last 1500 years? Are you sure? You really want to put that to the test?

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

Then NAME one.

Can I ask you, if you have an active account over at CAF? and if so, what handle you go by there? I have been there on numerous occasions.