Anti-catholics Don't Really Believe In Scripture Alone

[thessalonian]

I say this because Catholics read the entire Gospels to the faithful every year. But this is not sufficient for anti-catholis. THey still say the CC has a false gospel.

[KnightofChrist]

I would add that since "Scripture Alone" is not in the Bible that the doctrine of Scripture Alone is itself outside the Bible.

[Nathan]

Just to clarify...

The historic Evangelical doctrine of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i], as recovered and taught by Luther, Calvin, and all orthodox evangelicals up to the present day, is [b]not[/b] that the Bible is the ONLY authority for faith and practice (which [b]would[/b] be an extra-scriptural doctrine, indeed), but rather that the Bible, being the Word of God, is the only INFALLIBLE authority for faith and practice. The Word of God is always the final authority, [i]the[/i] authority among authorities. (As a [i]Sola Scriptura[/i]-adhering Protestant, I am free to be -- and should be -- instructed in the faith by many, many great theologians, past and present. Personally, I consider myself a keen student of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, and I apply many of their teachings in my faith life. But I do not consider them, or any 'Magisterium' or 'Deposit of Faith' which their teachings contribute to, to be infallible in any sense. They must always be judged, on matters of faith and practice, according to the Word.)

Frankly, I would consider the teaching that the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice, period -- which we might call '[i][b]Solo[/b] Scriptura[/i]' -- to be heretical.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1884403' date='Jun 5 2009, 06:46 PM']Just to clarify...

The historic Evangelical doctrine of [i]Sola Scriptura[/i], as recovered and taught by Luther, Calvin, and all orthodox evangelicals up to the present day, is [b]not[/b] that the Bible is the ONLY authority for faith and practice (which [b]would[/b] be an extra-scriptural doctrine, indeed), but rather that the Bible, being the Word of God, is the only INFALLIBLE authority for faith and practice. The Word of God is always the final authority, [i]the[/i] authority among authorities. (As a [i]Sola Scriptura[/i]-adhering Protestant, I am free to be -- and should be -- instructed in the faith by many, many great theologians, past and present. Personally, I consider myself a keen student of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, and I apply many of their teachings in my faith life. But I do not consider them, or any 'Magisterium' or 'Deposit of Faith' which their teachings contribute to, to be infallible in any sense. They must always be judged, on matters of faith and practice, according to the Word.)

Frankly, I would consider the teaching that the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice, period -- which we might call '[i][b]Solo[/b] Scriptura[/i]' -- to be heretical.[/quote]
I had not heard this before! Thanks for enlightening the subject.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1884403' date='Jun 5 2009, 06:46 PM']Personally, I consider myself a keen student of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, and I apply many of their teachings in my faith life.[/quote]

Like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the number of sacraments and the distinction between mortal and venial sin?

[Nathan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884451' date='Jun 5 2009, 07:35 PM']Like the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the number of sacraments and the distinction between mortal and venial sin? [/quote]

See, that's where Aquinas's fallibility becomes evident.

[Resurrexi]

A lot of what St. Thomas wrote is based on those two doctrines.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nathan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884468' date='Jun 5 2009, 06:52 PM']A lot of what St. Thomas wrote is based on those two doctrines.[/quote]

That's very true. Which is why my Thomism does not go far beyond philosophy and apologetic methodology.

[Resurrexi]

St. Augustine discusses the sacraments quite a bit, too.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884489' date='Jun 5 2009, 07:24 PM']St. Augustine discusses the sacraments quite a bit, too.[/quote]

Yes, of course. Interestingly, he seems to have been unaware that there are seven of them. In any case, much of the sacramentology of Augustine falls outside the bounds of both the defined Roman Catholic and Protestant positions.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Nathan

[Resurrexi]

St. Augustine may not have numbered the sacraments explicitly, but he did acknowledge that Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Order, and Matrimony are all sacraments.

[Nihil Obstat]

How long until Apotheoun tells us about sacraments?

[jeffpugh]

Actually, I was goona beat him to the chase, cause I think the Eastern view on Sacraments--Mysteries--changes the dynamics a bit. I await his most valued response!

[Brother Vinny]

Perhaps Nathan would be so kind as to tell us where an infallible authority for determining canon might be found. I find it telling that no Christian sect claims the Table of Contents was written by a Prophet or Apostle. If the Bible is the only infallible authority for faith and practice, but does not within its pages define that which is or is not canon, then its infallibility is compromised because it may include books that ought not to have been included, or may have omitted books that should have been left in.

As Saint Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth--a claim the Bible makes of her, but never of itself.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1884744' date='Jun 6 2009, 12:37 AM']Actually, I was goona beat him to the chase, cause I think the Eastern view on Sacraments--Mysteries--changes the dynamics a bit. I await his most valued response! [/quote]
I have huge respect for the Eastern Churches. A large portion of what he talks about goes way over my head...... but I love it anyway.