So many times the Roman Catholics put the burden on us, but how about putting the burden on them? Would any you like to defend this statement?

Scripture Alone is Insufficient to Serve as the Sole Infallible Rule of Faith

I believe the rest of us protestants can demonstrate that Scripture Alone is sufficient.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004

Answers

"Sola Scriptura" is fine is that is all you are going to believe. Nothing outside of Scriptures is then considered as worth believing. But, let's not forget that there was a time when the people did not have Scriptures (N.T.) and replied on word of mouth--Traditions. Also, let's remember that it took a council of men to compile what we now call the Holy Bible. They picked and chose which books to keep and which to ban, so we really are relying on their decisions.

Let the debates begin!

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Go ahead rod,

show us how Scripture Alone is Insufficient to Serve as the Sole Infallible Rule of Faith

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Your kidding, right? You are asking non-Sola Scriptura types to disprove "Sola Scriptura" using "Sola Scriptura" as evidence?? That's like using the catechism to disprove the catechism. This is the kind of illogic engendered by "Sola Scriptura". Amazing!

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

"Sola Scriptura" is a faith system devised by men in order to make sense of things they know little about. These men did not experience the life of Christ and have only glimpses (yet strong glimpses)of His life through Scriptures. Even the Scriptures tell of Traditions and the many more acts of Jesus that are not included in the text. History also proves the existence of Christ and other aspects of His walk on earth that cannot be found in Scriptures. One example: Dismas, the number of times Christ fell, Mary's presence at the cross....

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

David

you may not find the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in the Bible but it they are true - and they lead to a HUGE hole in the faith of the average protestant.

Luther, the Father of Division, was a Marian Devotee. why?

other concepts that you take for granted are not so obvious from the Bible, such as the Blessed Trinity.

Moreover, Rod nails it when he mentions the absence of an organised Scripture in the Early Church which did not stop Catholics praising Jesus as he would have wanted, relying upon the Apostolic Tradition.

anyways, nowhere is the Bible does it say that Scripture is all there is -- it is "profitable"; but the Bible does require us to follow Tradition.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.

David,

Written words are always subject to interpretation by the reader of those words. The question is, how do we know whether our interpretation of those words are correct or not?

If I take a college course, the instructor can give me a book and tell me to read it, saying that the concepts in it are obvious. Reading the book, I will get some concepts, and misunderstand others. What I need to do is consult the teacher who not only understands everything in the book, but also wrote the book!

I think the crux of the argument lies in how we consult "the teacher". Can we consult the teacher directly, or approach the teacher with a group of friends in the class, or talk with teachers' aides, or maybe glean some of the truth from a study group?

How does God work? I think He works in all these ways, but then the question comes, what if there are contradictory interpretations? Then how can we know what is true?

I have to run. What I'm trying to get at is that even Sola Scriptura proponents admit that Scripture alone is insufficient, although in a different way than Catholics. We also need the Spirit of Truth to guide our interpretation. I think, our difference lies in how we believe the Spirit of Truth is guaranteed to the believer.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

St Peter and St Paul tell us all Scripture is Divinely Inspired.

mmmmmm, now, I wonder who then told us what was meant by "Scripture"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

There were other miracles performed by Jesus, and probably other parables not found in the 66 book version, but none of these really make one Catholic if read. Many of Jesus' parables included in the KJV make the same point, simply illustrated differently. It's hard to believe that the other events would necessarily shed a whole new light upon Jesus' intention for the church. John finished his gospel account by saying, that if every thing Jesus had done were to be written down, there probably wouldn't be room in the whole world for all of the books. Physically, I'm sure the books would fit, because we have billions of books today on various topics, and If all were dedicated to Jesus, there would still be room for more. So, of all the accounts to Jesus' life, how many are needed to give us a sufficient understanding of his life, his mission, and our hope?

Andrew, if John had doubts that the world could hold the books that had accounted for everything Jesus had done, I doubt that oral tradition would have preserved everything else not recorded in scripture. As for the verse in Matthew, again we don't know that all of Jesus' commands were not presented in the 4 gospels (mat.mark.luke.john) and then the letters of the apostles. I mean, if a person faithfully observed the KJV commands of Jesus, one would be observing all of his commands.

I agree that early on there wasn't a bible to follow. The church depended upon the oral teachings. However, this from the beginning caused problems, as false apostles came teaching other gospels, either twisted or entirely different, hence the need for written accounts. But even still they had false letters circulating. I find it hard to believe that the papacy of today would still remember every oral tradition given by Jesus. Look what happened to the Israelites when they lost the book of the Law.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Luke???

Are you saying that in todays modern and technological society, we do not have "false teachers", "false doctrines", and so on? Things may look pretty on the surface, but I think that man remains just as gullible, foolish, confused, and arrogant. Not to mentioned, enlightened, educated, and "saved".

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

No, surely we have false teachers and false doctrines. No matter how one appears, he/she/it can be tested by scripture. It's a bit harder to test someone or something by oral tradition, isn't it? Our own court system has enough problems with that.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.come), May 10, 2004.

I see your point regarding oral tradition Luke.

That's why part of the Catholic equation is the Magisterium to help discern what are false doctrines and teachings and to help apply Sacred Tradition and Scripture to our world today (e.g., women ordination, abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual marriage, the efficacy of baptism, etc.).

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Artificial contraception? hmm. I've never thought of that on a Christian level. Is this considered a strange form of fornication? I mean, Mary conceived before sex, but of course, there is a huge difference.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Is it

Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith

that I'm trying to recall?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Interesting twist, Luke. It is also peculiar that the menstrual cycle does provide for rhythmic conception.

(how do you spell "menstrual"??)

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod..,

I think that when you come to realize that the Word of God--the Scriptures, were indeed known before the council of trent ever sat down to compile what was already understood--the better off you will be.

Certainly you don't think that the Jewish people needed the council at Jamnia in 95 A.D to tell them what was their Scriptures--right?

Scripture was being written and used simultaneously. It isn't as though people were walking around without the Word of God until the Catholic Church went behind closed doors to affirm what was already understood, right?

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith. There was a lot of stuff going around way before Judaism became a monotheistic religion. Judaism had to find its center because of the "intuition" practiced by man. That Judaism took on an even more radical transition into Christianity. It took St. Paul to stick his neck out and correct those "intuitions" , again. The list goes on on how corrections in doctrines have taken place. All because man had things wrong. Gut feelings and intuitions just don't cut it. The Holy Ghost doesn't go on intuitions.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith, as I read your previous post, I can't help to thinking that it is alright with you that many denominations exist right along with conflicting doctrines and theologies. You make the implication that these conflicting doctrines need no aligning, afterall, they are here because of man's "intuitions".

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod..,

Jesus defined the Jewish Scriptures long before A.D 95.

If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament, you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First, it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. But it is important to realize that the content is identical; it is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books. For example, books such as 1 and 2 Samuel are combined as one book.., and other smaller books are attached to larger ones.

The second difference is that the order of books is re-arranged. Interestingly--the last book in the Hebrew Bible is not Malachi but Chronicles.

Now let me share with you the *incidental* proof that Christ's Bible was the same in content as the Hebrew Old Testament that we have today.

The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel--right?

The last murder, according to the Hebrew order of books, was when the prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the Temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-21)

Only now are we prepared to understand Jesus' words in Matthew 23:34- 35:

"Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

Imagine that...Jesus defining the Hebrew Scriptures without a Catholic council... Christ gave us a sweeping panorama of the entire Old Testament history. These two murders served as book-ends for the whole of Hebrew canon....

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (NIV) So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[1] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Footnotes 2:15 Or traditions

How do you hold to the "word-of-mouth" teachings of the apostles such as Paul, who wrote this? This was the teaching of the leaders of the Church. If you do not, you are disobeying this command in Scripture. If you say that this no longer applies to you, then how do you decide whether any of the commands in the Bible still apply to you?

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV) 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 ground of the truth.

Scripture says that the Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not only is the idea of "Sola Scriptura" nowhere to be found in the Bible, but the authority of the Church is shown as the final authority under God.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Emily... But the church is not the Roman Catholic church--but God's body of believers.

Any tradition worthy of being kept--was recorded for us. Therefore-- you cannot rely on it if it isn't recorded because God didn't deem it necessary.

Jesus warned about the tradition of men., and even Paul exhorted us not to believe anything that didn't come directly from his mouth or that was written in his hand.

This is because word of mouth is entirely unreliable. Also..

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

God's household is his body of believers, not the Roman Catholic Church--and it is the Living God who is the pillar and foundation of truth.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

"What I'm trying to get at is that even Sola Scriptura proponents admit that Scripture alone is insufficient" - andy

Non-sense, if someone believes that Scripture is insufficient, then they wouldn't be advocating Sola Scriptura.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

"Non-sense, if someone believes that Scripture is insufficient, then they wouldn't be advocating Sola Scriptura." Uh....of course.

................ to

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Catholics are not saying that the Holy Scriptures are "insufficient". They are saying that they do not use "Sola Scriptura" as the foundation of their faith. The Scriptures are an important part of the overall foundation.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

"Sola Scriptura" is an escape from the Church and a surrender to man's interpretaions and translations of the Holy Scriptures. What we are really talking about now is "bibliolatry". I have heard too many times from certain radio evangelicals that the "Bible Saves". Uh.....people......Jesus saves.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

David,

Maybe it got lost in my post. The point I wanted to make was there can be different interpretations of Scripture. Doesn't Sola Scriptura include the concept that the believer will be led to properly interpret Scripture by the Holy Spirit, which is itself something outside the Book one is reading? We can read about the Holy Spirit in Scripture, but the Holy Spirit itself exists outside the written word.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the term "Scripture Alone." When I hear Sola Scriptura I take it literally. All one needs to know the truth is to read the Bible and that's it. To me, the doctrine means we will interpret properly on our own just by reading the words in Scripture. But if reading Scripture was all anyone needed to do to know the truth, why the need for pastors, or bible study, or an assembly of believers, or anything outside that book to help us understand Scripture?

What happens if honest believers have a difference in interpretation? If a person came to a Bible-only church and denied the Trinity based on their reading of the Bible, they would not be accepted as a Christian.

Interpretation is important. That's where some other authority outside oursleves (i.e., the Holy Spirit) comes in. I was trying to point out that Sola Scriptura, as practiced, includes things beyond just the believer reading their Bible and the words interpreting themselves.

Who does a believer go to if they do not understand a specific passage? Besides prayer, is there anything else someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura would do?

Please correct my definition of Sola Scriptura if I'm wrong. I'm not well versed in the nuances of Sola Scriptura.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

"Sola Scriptura" is an escape from the Church and a surrender to man's interpretaions and translations of the Holy Scriptures. What we are really talking about now is "bibliolatry".

That's part of what I was trying to say but from a different angle, and with a lot more words. Thanks Rod.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Who, then, has the Holy Spirit and is able to lead us in the Word? Who does one trust? Can one trust oneself to having the Holy Spirit indwelling in them? How can one be so sure or arrogant?

It has been suggested that anyone can read and understand Scriptures on their own. I can see the evidence that shows how false of an idea that is. Have a look at the conflicting doctrines in this forum and then look at our entire religious world.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Hi Andy.

It looks like we are on the same page, the same thoughts, and the same faith. Wow! I wonder where we got ejy-kated?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

It depends on who you ask Andy. I believe the scriptures alone are sufficient to reveal the nature of God and to lead a person to salvation, to build a person in faith, love, and obedience. However, I don't believe that silence is equated with restriction, at least, not in every case. There are external witnesses to events in Jesus' life. That they don't appear in either the KJV or Catholic Bible doesn't mean the recorded events never happened, or that the history of it is inaccurate. I guess to me, I believe sola scriptura because I don't believe anyone can add anything new to the Word of God. I can write a book that is fully true about God, but that doesn't mean it's necessary for anything.

Kind of like faith only, it depends on who you ask. I believe faith is the only way into heaven, but i don't believe that the act of faith alone is sufficient to salvation. Circumcision was both a sign of Abraham's covenant and the covenant itself. But simply geting the chop didn't make someone a Jew. Simply believing isn't enough, unless your belief is combined with obedience.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

I don't have the Scriptures memorized, but I do remember something in Sirach about searching out those who have wisdom as our teachers. Protestants use the term "elders". Basically, we need religious teachers/leaders.

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Good points Luke.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

You're thinking about Sirach 6:34. It's worth posting the whole context here:

18: My son, from your youth up choose instruction, and until you are old you will keep finding wisdom.

19: Come to her like one who plows and sows, and wait for her good harvest. For in her service you will toil a little while, and soon you will eat of her produce.

20: She seems very harsh to the uninstructed; a weakling will not remain with her.

21: She will weigh him down like a heavy testing stone, and he will not be slow to cast her off.

22: For wisdom is like her name, and is not manifest to many.

23: Listen, my son, and accept my judgment; do not reject my counsel.

24: Put your feet into her fetters, and your neck into her collar.

25: Put your shoulder under her and carry her, and do not fret under her bonds.

26: Come to her with all your soul, and keep her ways with all your might.

27: Search out and seek, and she will become known to you; and when you get hold of her, do not let her go.

28: For at last you will find the rest she gives, and she will be changed into joy for you.

29: Then her fetters will become for you a strong protection, and her collar a glorious robe.

30: Her yoke is a golden ornament, and her bonds are a cord of blue.

31: You will wear her like a glorious robe, and put her on like a crown of gladness.

32: If you are willing, my son, you will be taught, and if you apply yourself you will become clever.

33: If you love to listen you will gain knowledge, and if you incline your ear you will become wise.

34: Stand in the assembly of the elders. Who is wise? Cleave to him.

35: Be ready to listen to every narrative, and do not let wise proverbs escape you.

36: If you see an intelligent man, visit him early; let your foot wear out his doorstep.

37: Reflect on the statutes of the Lord, and meditate at all times on his commandments. It is he who will give insight to your mind, and your desire for wisdom will be granted.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

2 Tim 3:15

"and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Psalm 119:9 "How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word."

Psalm 119:105

"Your word is a lamp to my feet. and a light for my path...

The corruption of power reaches its greatest height in Catholicism's bold claim that its members cannot understand the Bible for themselves but must accept unquestioningly the Church's (a group of men, who privately decide for them) interpretation. With that edict, God's Word, the one repository of truth and liberty which is capable of destroying despotism.., is kept under church control.

This leaves devout Catholics at the mercy of their clergy--which we already know, is all too readily corrupt. Just look at the history.

No one has ever claimed that Scripture alone--means we study Scripture alone. It simply means that the Word of God is the only authority.

As far as studying it--we heed the warning not to study alone.., or to be involved in private interpretation--such as what the catholic Church does or the Jehovah Witnesses do--or the Mormons do.., but to study it in open with people. A church pastor and church leaders could be very helpful--but it isn't necessary. All people of God are qualified to read God's Word and are given the Holy Spirit for this very purpose--to understand.

John 16:13-14

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Wonderful! Andy. We are to search for the truth among the "elders" because they are wise: educated, faithful, inspired, and truthful.

That's only part of the foundation, even then.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

yeah but--Roman Catholic Elders??

The elders and deacons in the early church were not only Roman nor under Roman rule....

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

The catechism is taught by laymen in the Catholic Church--CCD or CCE. There is also adult Bible study groups. My grandmother lived in prayer and constant reading of Scriptures. I could go on, but to say that Catholics are restricted from thinking is not accurate at all. They are free to leave the Church and join or form their own free doctrine. There are many to choose from; and, they are different from each other. Nobody will be there to tell them how to believe, mainly, because their foundation (man-made) is so nebulous to grasp. At the very least, the Catholic Church is consistent in doctrine. One could argue that errors have occurred in the Catholic Church, but errors executed by mortals not conforming to the Church doctrines. The same thing happens in other denominations: Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggert, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, to name a few. They didn't exactly stick to doctrine, so I won't blame it on false doctrine, but on false teachers.

And, I won't mention the Episcopalians....oops.....I mentioned them.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Oh please rod..,

The Catholic Church has one set of doctrines and you either believe what they say or you are out. It's that simple.

What makes you think your religion is any different from any other religion? It's all man-made and all religions have their errors including Catholicism..

I know you somehow think the Catholic Church is somehow not part of the reformation--but that is ridiculous. Most reformers are X- Catholics.....

Religion is the problem....

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

Why are you bringing up the same refuted anti-protestant arguments? You just go round in circles...

-- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

Now, you are putting words in my mouth, Faith. Read what I wrote with a little more open-ness to what I'm trying to say. A Baptist would probably get kicked out of his church if he didn't stop with the drinking, too. So, the Baptist wanna-be still has to accept the Baptist doctrine or "hit the road Jack". Why would the Catholic Church not have the same regulations? Why would it be wrong for the Catholics to excommunicate a heretic, but ok for a Fundamentalist to do the same exact thing? Double Standard here or what? If I joined a Jehovah's Witness Church and then proclaimed "Jesus Is God", they'd kick me out faster than you can say "Holy JEHOSAPHAT!".

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

"Why are you bringing up the same refuted anti-protestant arguments? You just go round in circles... "

Hi David. Why didn't you ask Faith about her anti-Catholic arguments, instead? This is a challenge for Catholics, remember?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod..,

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I lumped all religion in the same boat--pointing out that your Catholic religion is really no different, no better. I never said that any protestant religion had it right either. All religions in general will make mistakes and be wrong. I think that that is why Jesus disliked it as much as he did. It's that tradition thing....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Catholics "and" Protestants go round in circles with regard to this question because each approaches the subject with a uniquely different preconception.

Catholics are not comfortable with personal interpretation of scripture due to the possibility of coming individually to wrong or conflicting conclusions.

Protestants on the other hand seem to inately trust their individual ability to discern correct meaning from scripture alone.

Catholics will look to the Church, trusting its centuries of tradition and teaching as revealed by the holy spirit as the final authority. Protestants trust the holy spirit to lead them individually to correct understanding.

I think its unlikely we will ever reach agreement about this because our starting points, our premises are so different. Catholics think the Protestant approach is risky and divisive, and Protestants think we're deluded and mislead by tradition.

It is fun going around though.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), May 10, 2004.

Wrong Jim..,

Protestants don't trust themselves individually. We study with our church with our Pastors, deacons, elders and teachers guiding us in the same way that the *church* functioned back in the apostolic times.

The Catholic Church doesn't *study* the Scriptures with its people-- it dictates what is..

That's not studying the Bible together as God's people.

The Bible actually warns against such private interpretation as your church practices.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Faith, your remarks and assertions are not fair to Catholics. I have walked as a Protestant. I breathed and ate all they had to teach me. It hit me like a ton of bricks that this particular "food" was tainted with many illogical conclusions or unresolved answers to questions based on Bible studies of men conforming to their doctrines. Catholicism is still a choice. You either believe or disbelieve Catholicism, much like any other doctrine out there. I don't go around telling people that they are "wrong". I ask questions and share answers. It is up to the individual to accept or deny, much the same as I do when I listen to a different teaching.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Sorry rod.., but Jim made the comment that Protestants study the Word by themselves. That is wrong.

I was born and raised Catholic., and I have left the Church because I discovered the truth in the Scriptures. That is something that as a Catholic, I could not do.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Faith,

I'm Catholic but have never really tried to be an apologist. My point was, that our (C vs P) approaches are fundamentally different. Our starting points give us little chance at ever reaching an agreement about who has the "best" or more correct approach. The Catholic one works for me.

Not quite sure what you mean by "private interpretation" as practiced by the Catholic Church. I never saw it that way.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 10, 2004.

Faith,

I also didn't mean to make it sound like you were interpreting sctipture "by yourself," when I said interpreting scripture alone, I should have used " " ... i.e. "Scripture Alone."

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), May 10, 2004.

The best argument against "sola scriptura" is found in scripture itself, for the "Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth," not scripture.

Secondly, the fact that sola scriptura leads to manifold division is yet more proof that it is a false doctrine born in the pit of hell itself.

Should we esteem the scripture? OF COURSE. Should we apply it to our lives? ABSOLUTELY. Should we take our everyday, ordinary lives to the scripture? Without a doubt.

The trouble comes when man, by his own initiative and under his own perogative, by the power he has vested upon himself, interprets scripture eisogetically, and then goes about finding devotees who swallow his garbage hook, line and sinker "all based on the Bible" of course.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 10, 2004.

The Catholic Church's interpretation of Scripture is private. It isn't even open for discussion by the Catholic people. It was determined by a few men behind closed doors so-to-speak, what God is saying., and all you can do is buy it, or be anathema.

The same can be said for the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormonism. They each have their private interpretation too.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Gail--who is the *church* according to Scripture?

It is Jesus' body of believers.., not the Roman Church.

And this body is the church of the Living God.., and the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth--not the Roman Catholic Church-- sorry.

And also Gail?

You don't see the irony in this remark??:

The trouble comes when man, by his own initiative and under his own perogative, by the power he has vested upon himself, interprets scripture eisogetically, and then goes about finding devotees who swallow his garbage hook, line and sinker "all based on the Bible" of course.

Isn't this exactly what some Roman Catholic popes have done?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Gail, you don't mince words! My wife thinks I'm crazy for sitting alone in the room laughing out loud. I'm sorry. I don't mean any disrespect for anyone's faith system. Jim said it; it is rather fun going round and round over these differences. Our common denominator is our faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. Perhaps we should concentrate on the joy of Salvation.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod said: Our common denominator is our faith in our Saviour Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. Perhaps we should concentrate on the joy of Salvation.

Amen, rod. God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith says:

"The trouble comes when man, by his own initiative and under his own perogative, by the power he has vested upon himself, interprets scripture eisogetically, and then goes about finding devotees who swallow his garbage hook, line and sinker "all based on the Bible" of course. "

I know a few Baptist Pastors that will fit that description.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

I didn't say that--Gail did.

I was quoting her and then reminding her that we could say this about the popes.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Hey, I've met plenty of those types in may adventures, too.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith, you said

"I was born and raised Catholic., and I have left the Church because I discovered the truth in the Scriptures. That is something that as a Catholic, I could not do."

You were not allowed to read scripture as a Catholic?

Gail

P.S. BTW, David, this subject has been argued over and over and over again. Don't you think it's time to give the subject a rest? I cannot imagine that any of us have anything new to add to this already "absolutely-broke-to-death" subject.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 10, 2004.

My apologies, Faith. I haven't been around for a while and I should have read the posts more carefully. Gail is right though.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Gail,

When this topic is always brought up by Roman Catholics, it is always they who put the burden of proof on the non-catholic. Can you demonstrate that Scripture Alone is Insufficient to Serve as the Sole Infallible Rule of Faith??

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Why hasn't David commented about Protestants "butting in" to this Catholic discussion??? I don't see it as "butting in". I see it as exchange of discussions. David???

(I'll probably get deleted for these here comments. I've probably made David angry, again.)

.......I'm backing up this thread, too, David...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Because Protestants are the other side trying to show that Scripture is sufficient!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

David says:

"Can you demonstrate that Scripture Alone is Insufficient to Serve as the Sole Infallible Rule of Faith??"

Here are a few David:

1) Scripture argues this point.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle

2) The Church has authority, as given to Peter individually and the apostles collectively.

Matthew 16:19

"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This binding and loosing is part of the teaching authority of the church. Notice that it doesn't say Peter can only bind and loose what is written in scripture.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

I'm starting to get the idea that all churches operate in a similar way. A church is a church because it is a group of people united by a common faith. If one does not believe certain truths that the church abides by, they are not a part of that church anymore. I'm guessing that even in Faith's church, if someone does not believe that Jesus is Lord and that He died for our sins, that they will not be considered as part of the church any more.

Our churches all seem to follow the same model to maintain the integrity of the church. As Faith said, "We study with our church with our Pastors, deacons, elders and teachers guiding us in the same way that the *church* functioned back in the apostolic times.

For the Catholic these Pastors, deacons, elders and teachers are lay people, deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope. For Baptists it will be different people with the same finction, for Episcopailians, someone else, for Lutherans, someone else, for nondenominational churches, others. We're not so different after all.

The question is, who do we trust. This is why it is so important to pray for our leadership in the church, that they will not lead us astray. This is why it is so important for all Christians to study Scripture, and even the Church Fathers to see how the church handled various evils that kept raising their ugly heads. Do we really think that prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, divorce, kiddie porn, drug abuse, genocide, racism, slavery, and other evils are new to our time and society? Look back in history and you will see that it's all the same evils with a new face.

The reason I think that "scripture alone is insufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith" is because the doctrine assumes that scripture is self-interpreting. I believe that both in practice, and historically, it is not self-interpreting. Every church requires some means for interpreting Scripture. A church can claim that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, but in practice, it is the body of believers that are guided by and interpret Scripture that end up being viewed as the infallible arbiter of faith. Just my humble opinion. Please tell me if my interpretation of Sola Scriptura is in error. As I said before, i don't claim to know or understand the official definition.

Sorry for the lengthy reply. EVERYONE here has added so much to this great discussion already, I know I probably didn't add anything new.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 10, 2004.

Dave

you say: "When this topic is always brought up by Roman Catholics, it is always they who put the burden of proof on the non-catholic. Can you demonstrate that Scripture Alone is Insufficient to Serve as the Sole Infallible Rule of Faith?? "

OK, think about it this way -- what if you were stranded on a desert island with a copy of the Bible but with St Luke's Gospel missing - the pages had fallen out in the plave crash?

Would that Bible be insufficient or sufficient?

What would you say?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004.

James...,

These two verses you provided below, in my opinion, support the idea that tradition worth keeping has been recorded for us.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

These things that were taught--were also written. Otherwise, how on earth could they be kept *just as* they were delivered and taught? It would be impossible to retain the tradition over time, and God knows this.

Think of that telephone game you must have played as a kid. You stand in a long line and the first person whispers a message to the next. It gets passed along the long line until the very last person on line has to repeat the message out loud. Of course--the message by then, barely ressembles what the first person in line had originally said.

Jesus showed us how the Saduccees and Pharisees had a funny way of prefering their tradition--which they claimed came from God too-- (only it had evolved into ridiculous rules and had strayed so far from the truth in Scripture) that Jesus said that they were prefering their tradition *over* the Word of God.

Also., the keys were given to all disciples--and that would include even us today. As believers, we are all disciples of Jesus. And the church is God's body of believers--not the Roman Catholic Church.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 11, 2004.

"Think of that telephone game you must have played as a kid. "

That "telephone game" has happened with the "hand me down" versions and tranlsations of modern Bibles. That "telephone game" is continuing with the multitudes of books written under the guise of "Christian" interpretations castigated under the hordes of Protestant roofs.

That telephone number is still the same when we speak of Traditions harbored in the Catholic faith. The teachings have shown the Light across time, people, and adversity.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

rod..,

Why must you just spout out false information like this?

Tradition has not been handed down since the apostles--it evolved over time. Some things, like the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception--were unheard of by the apostles themselves.

And as far as faulty translations--we can easily see which ones are in error.

Interpretation is another thing--and your church has its own private interpretation.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 11, 2004.

Why must you just spout out false information like this?

How should I spout out false information then? (Just kidding.)

Tradition has not been handed down since the apostles--it evolved over time. Some things, like the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception--were unheard of by the apostles themselves.

Then why does the doctrine exist? How do we know, with great certainty, that the doctrine is false?

And as far as faulty translations--we can easily see which ones are in error.

Perhaps you and I can "easily" see the errors. Tell that to the Jehovah's Witnesses as they fight us with their bible in hand. Who will be there to shelter the newbies from errors?

Interpretation is another thing--and your church has its own private interpretation.

Ok, let's use your opinion. Then, every denomination has their own private interpretation, too. The burning question again: Who as the truth?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Tell me this isn't true, as you go shopping at one of those Christian book stores:

That "telephone game" is continuing with the multitudes of books written under the guise of "Christian" interpretations castigated under the hordes of Protestant roofs.

Those book stores can be considered Protestant. The Catholic stuff is usually tucked clear back out of immediate view. We don't want to offend them Protestant dollars. But, have a look at the many interpretations, Christian living, doctrines, recipies for Christians, and on and on. It boggles the mind. Things haven't changed, have they?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Well.,

For one thing--my church does not have a *private* interpretation. It is open for study. It is purely biblical. We don't have rituals or festivals or extra-biblical doctrines that we *must* accept or be anathema.

The way we know if a doctrine is true or not is whether it is clearly supported in the Scriptures.

One of the warning signs in any religion--is when you are told that you may not question what is being said or when you are threatened with being kicked out for not believing what they tell you to believe.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 11, 2004.

This for has engaged in "kicking" people out, righteously or not, justifiably or not. Some people just need "kicking".

David asserted the following:

"I believe the rest of us protestants can demonstrate that Scripture Alone is sufficient. "

Well, then why all of those Christian book stores? They ain't just selling Bibles, you know.

Oops! I didn't mean to put the burden on you, again.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Uh..."This forum has engaged in "kicking" people out." sorry.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

For one thing--my church does not have a *private* interpretation. It is open for study. It is purely biblical. We don't have rituals or festivals or extra-biblical doctrines that we *must* accept or be anathema.

You guys must have some extremely wise and holy interpreters among you. The way we know if a doctrine is true or not is whether it is clearly supported in the Scriptures.

Until, man's interpretations enter the equation.

One of the warning signs in any religion--is when you are told that you may not question what is being said or when you are threatened with being kicked out for not believing what they tell you to believe.

Would Luther's church have the same regulations?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

I think that even the Apostles had to do some "kicking" around once in a while.

3 John 1

9: I have written something to the church; but Diot'rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

10: So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words. And not content with that, he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church.

2 John 1

8: Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

9: Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son.

10: If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting;

11: for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

12: Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

2 Cor 10

5: We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

6: being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

7: Look at what is before your eyes. If any one is confident that he is Christ's, let him remind himself that as he is Christ's, so are we.

8: For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I shall not be put to shame.

9: I would not seem to be frightening you with letters.

10: For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account."

11: Let such people understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

Yes, after the troubled follower is brought before the church members and nothing has been rememdied, it time for the troubled brother to leave.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

r-e-m-e-d-i-e-d.......ok "remedied".

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

I think you hit on a biblical concept here Rod.

Matthew 18

15: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16: But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19: Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

20: For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Could this verse also be applied to those who publicly (and thus are scandalous) deny certain truths of a church's beliefs? I suppose it could. But then isn't that person separating themselves from the church by their public denial of the truths of the church?

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

Or, "...does this dress make me look fat?"

Yes, exactly, Andy. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment in time. I'm glad you are able to offere Scriptures.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

rod,

You should check out biblegateway.com

It's very handy for searching by keyword or reference in multiple (albeit Protestant) versions and also other languages. Whenever I post Scripture, I usually copy & paste it from there. It's a lot easier than typing it all out.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

I use biblegateway also Emily. Crosswalk was okay, but you have to delete reference numbers if cut-n-pasting. I've been using the New American Bible at nccbuscc.org/nab/bible for my Catholic Bible resource. Is this a good one?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

My hands are tied until after 5:00 p.m.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Luke,

Yes, that's a good one as that's what is most commonly used among Catholics in the US. Here are the English Catholic Bibles that I know of:

Douay Rheims: http://www.christianisrael.com/douay/index2.htm

New American: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

Revised Standard: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html#browse

Then there is Jerusalem Bible (I don't use it as it's less literal).

As far as I know, these are the only Catholic Bibles in English that are officially approved.

I wonder what the Catholic versions are in Spanish? Rod? Elpidio?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

I think your source is good Luke. You can also use:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ for the NAB.

If anyone is interested in the RSV try:

http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

It has a search tool and a link to the KJV.

I've also found the NSRV links useful:

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/BIBLE/BIBLE.HTM

http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

Wow Emily, are we on the same page or what? You're a minute faster than me.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 11, 2004.

I don't have the Douay Rheims, yet. I do have many more.

Spanish version:

(From memory)

La Biblia Latin-Americano
Valeria y Reina
La Santa Biblia
Nueva Version Internacional
a few others I can't recall their titles.

I had a chance to buy a 1950's Douay Rheims. I didn't think $100. was within my sanity level.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

a 1966 edition of The Jerusalem Bible is my favorite. I also have a reprint. My main complain: the verse numbers are hard to line up with the actual verse.

Next, 1977 edition of The New American Bible. It contains "Lilith".

Several King James Versions and New King James Version. The English Standard Version is fine. Ther Revised Standard seems very direct. The New American Standard is rather clumsy in the flow of phrases. I rarely open any of the paraphrased versions nor do I spend too much time on the lesser known Bibles: The Contemporary [something or other], The New World Translation, (forget) The Book of Mormons.

I also have a collection of the "other gospels" and some off- religions and mythological books. I also have books on paganism. My Judaism collection is beginning to sprout. I have one Book of the Masons (they worship light, or something).

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Thanks rod. I have heard of most of these, but I was wondering specifically which ones are approved Catholic versions. I have also heard of this Protestant one:

Dios Habla Hoy.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

I wonder if "La Guadalupana" Bible is officially acceptable.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

list of scriptures to read and ponder, relative to this issue john 21:25 the bible isnt the complete works of jesus making it fallable and 2pet 3:16 Christ left us a church to help interperet scripture mt 16:13-20 and to give traditions 2thess 2:15 i am only a freshman in highschool so dont be to quick to judge my statements. they will grow more complete with age and schooling as i am going to major in theology.

-- brandon t w (Got3geckos@aol.com), February 01, 2005.

list of scriptures to read and ponder, relative to this issue john 21:25 the bible isnt the complete works of jesus making it fallable

{This is illogical. acceptign the premise that not all th words of Jesus ar eint eh Bible, which is a far-fetched conclusion since the words iN john refer only t the book of John, you still do not arrive atthe Bible beign fallable, merley " Incomplete."

Suppose the Bible doesnt contain all th words of Christ, does this mean that the wirds it does contain are somehow sunjec ot error? no, it does not.}-Zarove

and 2pet 3:16 Christ left us a church to help interperet scripture

{ 16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The context is he speaks of Paul and his epistles, no thte Chruch...}-Zarove

mt 16:13-20

{For context...

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18. 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. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Trust me, we have had this debate befroe as wlel...}-Zarove

and to give traditions 2thess 2:15

{ 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Yes, traditions, now which ones?}-Zarove

i am only a freshman in highschool so dont be to quick to judge my statements.

{No judgement here, btu lively discusion...}-Zarove

they will grow more complete with age and schooling as i am going to major in theology.

{Then you will perhaps read up on the divergences and altenate conceptiosn foudn within such...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 01, 2005.