Question for Catholics

Another answer: I was saved reading the Bible.

 

The answer is rather simple, if you are willing to accept it.

The man was reading the Old Testament Scripture. God has chosen to make His Gospel known through His Apostles. The prophets, the Law, and Moses point to Jesus...but Jesus needed to be manifested.

 

So when we say that Scripture is sufficient we really mean Scripture and a teacher are sufficient?

 

No. Scripture is sufficient. We have the whole canon now.

 

Then why this demand made in this thread for "what would you say"?

If Scripture is sufficient then this thread is meaningless.

If this thread is meaningful to someone then how can that someone say that Scripture is sufficient?

 

Then why bother with preaching on a Sunday (or indeed any other time)? Why not just say to the good folk who come into church, "read the Bible in your pews and figure it out for yourselves"?

 

Care to enlighten me, then?

 

No. Has God ordained in the norm to save those who believe by reading or by preaching? You know it is by preaching.

The sufficiency of Scripture, and as it relates to Sola Scriptura, is not only a statement about the Scriptures themselves but also a statement about authority.

 

Well said. I would be interested to know if Matt understands Sola Scriptura as this. By the arguments against it, it would seem no.

 

OK, but that's no sola Scriptura, that's suprema Scriptura. And with the latter I have no issue. Nor do any other (true) Anglicans (TEC excepted of course but I wouldn't call them true Anglicans).

 

What that tells me is that somehow you obtained an odd, obscure, or wrong understand of the idea of Sola Scriptura. Here are some Q&A on the subject:

1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--" Decrees of Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.


7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons--

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ss01.htm

 

What's odd is that many denominations within Protestantism have their own idea of what sola Scriptura is...

Luther's intention when he cried sola Scriptura when he was protesting the Roman Catholic Church was that which doesn't conflict with Scripture...the reformed notion of sola Scriptura today is more along the lines of, only that which is in Scripture.

In XC
-

 

Do you have something from Luther showing this? I will do some digging too.

 

You won't find a quote verbatim from Luther himself, but if you have read enough about Luther, his life and why he wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church, you'll get a clear picture that today's notion of sola Scriptura that the more radical reformers took to its logical conclusions is not what Luther had in mind.

In fact if we try to put ourselves in the place of those early reformers, such as Luther, we must certainly have some appreciation for their reasons for championing the Doctrine of sola Scriptura. When one considers the corruption in the Roman Church at that time, the degenerate teachings that it promoted, and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself -along with the fact that the West was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage, it is difficult to imagine within those limitations how one such as Luther might have responded with significantly better results.

How could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition (as all in the Roman West were lead to believe) was personified by the very papacy that was responsible for those abuses. To Luther, it was tradition that had erred, and if he were to reform the Church he would have to do so with the sure undergirding of the Scriptures.

However, Luther never really sought to eliminate tradition altogether, and he never used the Scriptures truly "alone," what he really attempted to do was to use Scripture to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt.

Luther's 95 thesis is what he saw that conflicted with Holy Scripture and with Holy Tradition.

In XC
-

 

Ok, well then we can't know then how he would weigh in today on our discussion. I do think his final statement to the papacy does clue us in that he believed Scripture was superior to the Roman church or its councils.

Not only difficult to imagine, but impossible. But in the end it doesn't matter what Luther said..it matters what God says.

This deals with Luther's outcry against the papacy and its abuses. What is relevent today in the topic regarding Scripture and Tradition is different from the issues Luther battled initially.

That very well may be true. After Luther was born of God upon reading the Scriptures and learning its truth concerning how he could be justified before an All Holy God, contrary to papal doctrine, he taught a great many things.

I am no expert on the life of Martin Luther. I know what I have read in a few articles and a couple movies...lol I don't follow Martin Luther. I follow Christ.

After reading the 95 Thesis, it seemed more of an outcry against indulgenses.

 

Go back to the OP

Catholics detest sola scriptura and put Tradition over the Scripture. When I was RC, they discouraged all Catholics from reading the Bible, and even now Catholics can only read the Bible with the understanding that the interpretation comes from the priest, i.e. the matgesterium. They have no brains to allow the Holy Spirit to let it speak to themselves and give them the sense of the meaning of Scripture. There is no Holy Spirit, when reading the Scripture. It is the magesterium that takes the place of the Holy Spirit.

However, the original intent of this thread has been to get the Catholic view of salvation. It has succeeded, but only in part.