Sola Scriptura

[RayneBeau]

Does Roman Catholicism consider 'Sola Scriptura' to be a Protestant concoction?

 

[RayneBeau]

Do you think that the issue of Scripture and Scripture Alone (sola Scriptura) is a matter that divides professing Christians as to the foundation of their faith and what defines their faith?

 

[Maxtar]

Does Roman Catholicism consider 'Sola Scriptura' to be a Protestant concoction?

It is a Protestant concoction. It denies many of the traditions that were established during the first 1500 years of Christianity and relegates the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church to being a minor player in the Christian faith.

 

[Nondenom40]

It is a Protestant concoction. It denies many of the traditions that were established during the first 1500 years of Christianity and relegates the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church to being a minor player in the Christian faith.

Your problem is that you think 'the church' is some entity, or institution. Its not, its people. Sola scriptura only denies traditions when it contradicts scripture thats why catholics have a problem with it. That and they can't find their teachings in the bible. If you could find what you believe in the bible you wouldn't have a problem with ss.

 

[Maxtar]

Your problem is that you think 'the church' is some entity, or institution. Its not, its people.

It is both. In this world there are institutions and the church is one of them and that is why Jesus started "a church". He did not just write a book that everyone would read and then try to figure out themselves.

 

[Nic]

It is both. In this world there are institutions and the church is one of them and that is why Jesus started "a church". He did not just write a book that everyone would read and then try to figure out themselves.

Christianity has a great heritage.

 

[Nondenom40]

It is both. In this world there are institutions and the church is one of them and that is why Jesus started "a church". He did not just write a book that everyone would read and then try to figure out themselves.

It's not both. And if it were you'd still have the uphill climb to prove the rcc is even in the bible. It's not. We have a structure given to us by Paul in the pastorals. He did the bulk of church planting and not once do we see him say this person is the pastor but you answer to Peter. All local churches were autonomous. Paul told the elders at Ephesus that the Holy Spirit made them overseers. So no. There was no institution in the first century just local congregations.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Does Roman Catholicism consider 'Sola Scriptura' to be a Protestant concoction?

That depends on how you are defining Sola Scriptura.

The ECF certainly had a high view of the authority of Scripture. The ECF certainly believed that the Church and Tradition were lesser authorities. The bishops at the Council of Nicaea did not at first like using the word "Homoousious with the Father" because "Homoousious" was not scriptural in the sense that the word does not appear in the Scriptures. So it is clear that the ECF had quite a high view of Scripture.

It is my contention that the Catholic Church is not rejecting Sola Scriptura persey, but the Protestant formulation of the doctrine. The novelty of the Protestant reformers and their successors is in driving a wedge between the Scriptures, the Church and Tradition. For the ECF, the Church, Scriptures and Tradition were seen as a unity. What the Scriptures teach, the Church teaches, what the Church teaches the Scriptures teach, what Tradition teaches the Scriptures Teach, the Church teaches etc.

The Protestant formulation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura presupposes that the Church and Tradition could teach something that is outside the scope of the Scriptures; a concept the ECF had not considered. Certainly the ECF felt that individual bishops could potentially teach something outside the Scriptures--hence why they say things like "Do not receive this teaching from me without Scriptural proof" but they had not considered that the Church as a whole could teach something outside the Scriptures. That concern did not really come about until the 1200-1300's. By the 1300's the Church certainly had developed practices that had no apparent basis in Scripture. Note the word "apparent." It was from this that theologians began debating the relationship of the Church, the Scriptures and Tradition and whether Scripture had to formally teach something, etc.

Thus, Catholic apologists who suggest that Sola Scriptura is an invention----in my opinion, such a statement is a bit naïve. The idea the the Scriptures are the Norm of norms without norm is certainly historical and, certainly scriptural. The novelty for the reformers was in introducing a wedge between the Scriptures, Tradition and the Church, and in suggesting that the Church considered from a universal level could teach something that is outside the Scriptures. Another novelty of the reformers was in their breaking union with the Church--and assuming that unity is not essential to what it means to be the Church. Granted there were schisms in the past---but the Church always saw these as sad--and always worked to restore union. The reformers on the other hand broke union with the Church--and continued to splinter--all claiming that they were doing it the most biblical way. Even Luther recognized that this wasn't good.

The reason that the Church could not teach something outside the Scriptures---is because the Church herself is the living embodiment of the Word of God. The Faith pre-existed the Scriptures. God inspired the Scriptures from the pre-existent Faith of the Church. Thus, the Scriptures mirror what the Church believes in her heart and reflects it to the world in writing. But if the Church already had the Faith in her heart, this continues today. If the Church already implicitly has the Faith in her heart, it si difficult to see how the Church could teach something outside the Scriptures.

 

[mica]

That depends on how you are defining Sola Scriptura.

The ECF certainly had a high view of the authority of Scripture. The ECF certainly believed that the Church and Tradition were lesser authorities. The bishops at the Council of Nicaea did not at first like using the word "Homoousious with the Father" because "Homoousious" was not scriptural in the sense that the word does not appear in the Scriptures. So it is clear that the ECF had quite a high view of Scripture.

It is my contention that the Catholic Church is not rejecting Sola Scriptura persey, but the Protestant formulation of the doctrine. The novelty of the Protestant reformers and their successors is in driving a wedge between the Scriptures, the Church and Tradition. For the ECF, the Church, Scriptures and Tradition were seen as a unity. What the Scriptures teach, the Church teaches, what the Church teaches the Scriptures teach, what Tradition teaches the Scriptures Teach, the Church teaches etc.

The Protestant formulation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura presupposes that the Church and Tradition could teach something that is outside the scope of the Scriptures; a concept the ECF had not considered. Certainly the ECF felt that individual bishops could potentially teach something outside the Scriptures--hence why they say things like "Do not receive this teaching from me without Scriptural proof" but they had not considered that the Church as a whole could teach something outside the Scriptures. That concern did not really come about until the 1200-1300's. By the 1300's the Church certainly had developed practices that had no apparent basis in Scripture. Note the word "apparent." It was from this that theologians began debating the relationship of the Church, the Scriptures and Tradition and whether Scripture had to formally teach something, etc.

Thus, Catholic apologists who suggest that Sola Scriptura is an invention----in my opinion, such a statement is a bit naïve. The idea the the Scriptures are the Norm of norms without norm is certainly historical and, certainly scriptural. The novelty for the reformers was in introducing a wedge between the Scriptures, Tradition and the Church, and in suggesting that the Church considered from a universal level could teach something that is outside the Scriptures. Another novelty of the reformers was in their breaking union with the Church--and assuming that unity is not essential to what it means to be the Church. Granted there were schisms in the past---but the Church always saw these as sad--and always worked to restore union. The reformers on the other hand broke union with the Church--and continued to splinter--all claiming that they were doing it the most biblical way. Even Luther recognized that this wasn't good.

The reason that the Church could not teach something outside the Scriptures---is because the Church herself is the living embodiment of the Word of God. The Faith pre-existed the Scriptures. God inspired the Scriptures from the pre-existent Faith of the Church. Thus, the Scriptures mirror what the Church believes in her heart and reflects it to the world in writing. But if the Church already had the Faith in her heart, this continues today. If the Church already implicitly has the Faith in her heart, it si difficult to see how the Church could teach something outside the Scriptures.

is this what the RCC teaches you?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

is this what the RCC teaches you?

I am not sure what you mean by "teaches me."

The Church believes this, yes. But this is something I have learned in my study of history and theology.

Protestant fundamentalists and some Catholic apologists can be naïve when reading history. The Catholic apologists are naïve when they say that Sola Scriptura is an invention. It is understandable--but a bit of an over-reaction. Protestant fundamentalists are also naïve when they assume that the history of Christianity is Protestant and in assuming that God gave the Church the Scriptures without also appointing a divinely authorized teacher.

 

[Nondenom40]

I am not sure what you mean by "teaches me."

The Church believes this, yes. But this is something I have learned in my study of history and theology.

Protestant fundamentalists and some Catholic apologists can be naïve when reading history. The Catholic apologists are naïve when they say that Sola Scriptura is an invention. It is understandable--but a bit of an over-reaction. Protestant fundamentalists are also naïve when they assume that the history of Christianity is Protestant and in assuming that God gave the Church the Scriptures without also appointing a divinely authorized teacher.

We have a divine authority, God.

1John 2
27 And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you remain in Him.

Wheres your divine authority?

And we've never said christian history is protestant. Christian history is christian.

 

[mica]

I am not sure what you mean by "teaches me."

why not? that is a very, very simple question.

The Church believes this, yes. But this is something I have learned in my study of history and theology.

have you ever heard 'the RCC men' relate that info to you? a priest? a bishop or pope? did you study history/theology at a catholic school?

Protestant fundamentalists and some Catholic apologists can be naïve when reading history. The Catholic apologists are naïve when they say that Sola Scriptura is an invention. It is understandable--but a bit of an over-reaction. Protestant fundamentalists are also naïve when they assume that the history of Christianity is Protestant

have you surveyed all protestants on that? were they believers or unbelievers?

believers know that history of Christianity is not 'Catholic'. the label 'protestant' had not yet been made up by men. that came much later by the man made catholic group.

and in assuming that God gave the Church the Scriptures without also appointing a divinely authorized teacher.

He didn't give them to the RCC. He gave them to the Jews and later to some Gentiles to take to the rest of the world.

He did appoint divinely authorized teachers - you can read their words in scripture. He also gave the Holy Spirit to believers. The apostles / disciples had His guidance and inspiration during their life and in their writings.

The Holy Spirit is not who/what teaches or inspires catholics to teach contrary to what He inspired the men who were chosen by God to write as His word.

Every believer today has those divinely inspired teachers - those who penned His word under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They also have the gift of the Holy Spirit given to them when they were born again.

No divinely authorized teacher teaches contrary to scripture. They don't add to it, change it or take away from it. Those are things the RCC does, so we know that the RCC is not a divinely authorized teacher.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

We have a divine authority, God.

1John 2
27 And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you remain in Him.

Wheres your divine authority?

And we've never said christian history is protestant. Christian history is christian.

No kidding! Yes, of course God is my authority and of course His authority is divine.

You seem to think that only Scripture can manifest the authority of God.

I believe that God's authority is manifest uniquely in the Scriptures, but that God's authority is also manifest in the Church which God has divinely authorized to teach me, and in Tradition which hands on one and the same Gospel that the Scriptures hand on.

My point is that we both agree that God's authority is the only authority. We disagree on the locus of this authority.

 

[Nondenom40]

No kidding! Yes, of course God is my authority and of course His authority is divine.

You seem to think that only Scripture can manifest the authority of God.

I believe that God's authority is manifest uniquely in the Scriptures, but that God's authority is also manifest in the Church which God has divinely authorized to teach me, and in Tradition which hands on one and the same Gospel that the Scriptures hand on.

My point is that we both agree that God's authority is the only authority. We disagree on the locus of this authority.

And yet the bible never declares the rcc as having authority in anything. Maybe that hurdle should be jumped first? Without that, the rest falls flat on its face.

 

[mica]

No kidding! Yes, of course God is my authority and of course His authority is divine.

You seem to think that only Scripture can manifest the authority of God.

I believe that God's authority is manifest uniquely in the Scriptures, but that God's authority is also manifest in the Church which God has divinely authorized to teach me, and in Tradition which hands on one and the same Gospel that the Scriptures hand on.

My point is that we both agree that God's authority is the only authority. We disagree on the locus of this authority.

yet most catholics don't know the gospel, the RCC seldom mentions it. So what gospel does it 'hand on' and who does it 'hand it on' to?

His word never mentions the RCC or Peter as a pope.

catholics don't know who / what His church is.

etc

 

[balshan]

It is a Protestant concoction. It denies many of the traditions that were established during the first 1500 years of Christianity and relegates the authority of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church to being a minor player in the Christian faith.

It is not a concoction. It denies the false doctrines of your institution. Your institution is not the universal church of the NT.

 

[balshan]

Your problem is that you think 'the church' is some entity, or institution. Its not, its people. Sola scriptura only denies traditions when it contradicts scripture thats why catholics have a problem with it. That and they can't find their teachings in the bible. If you could find what you believe in the bible you wouldn't have a problem with ss.

That is the truth.

 

[balshan]

It's not both. And if it were you'd still have the uphill climb to prove the rcc is even in the bible. It's not. We have a structure given to us by Paul in the pastorals. He did the bulk of church planting and not once do we see him say this person is the pastor but you answer to Peter. All local churches were autonomous. Paul told the elders at Ephesus that the Holy Spirit made them overseers. So no. There was no institution in the first century just local congregations.

Great response

 

[Maxtar]

All local churches were autonomous.

No they weren't. As proof we have the scriptures themselves and the letters to these local churches where they were told how they were messing up and they had better get with the correct program, the correct program as defined by them - the ecclesiastical authority.

 

[balshan]

yet most catholics don't know the gospel, the RCC seldom mentions it. So what gospel does it 'hand on' and who does it 'hand it on' to?

His word never mentions the RCC or Peter as a pope.

catholics don't know who / what His church is.

etc

You are right, there is so much the do not know or understand. They do not know true repentance. Their gospel places too much emphasis on Mary being co this and that.

Jesus would never give authority to an institution that does not follow scripture.