Are non Catholic ministers who believe in Sola Scriptura..........?

Question

required to have training and be fluent in all biblical languages and hermeneutics? If not, is that because they believe that the translations of Scripture are thoroughly reliable and that literary genres and history have no consequences on interpretation and understanding? What is the impact of uneducated ministers relying on their own reason for interpretation? Could this be why there are so many schisms in the body of Christ?

Suzanne,

Well the Bible and the fathers disagree with you. They were Catholic in every sense and the Church began at Pentecost. There is absolutely no biblical or historical evidence to the contrary.

You are entirely wrong on all your accusations except the celibate priesthood which was instituted in the eleventh century to stop the practice of nepotism. But, even prior to that celibacy was considered to be a gift as evidenced by St. Paul, Jesus And others among the original 70.

I was a professor of early Church history as both a Protestant and a Catholic and you are simply misinformed about the early Church.

Answer 1

Sola scriptura has caused a nuclear meltdown in the Church. The united community envisioned by Jesus has splintered into more than 20,000 shards, all from a single bad idea.

You are quite right in imagining the kind of training a Christian leader would have to undergo to replace the vast array of saints and scholars who have worked out the meaning of scriptures over the last two millennia. Biblical languages, hermeneutics, literary genres, history, and archaelogy would all have to be expert areas.

Biblical interpreters would require special expertise with the Fathers of the Church, the Christian scholars of the first several centuries who were disciples of the Twelve Disciples, or disciples of the disciples of the Twelve. Peter, James, and John did an immeasurable service to Christendom by asking Jesus to explain and reexplain his teachings. Thus, their explanations of parables, poetic language, and cryptic teachings must be considered authoritative in understanding the gospels.

John 21:25 gives a strong warning against sola scriptura: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Would we really want to restrict our knowledge to what was written down, excluding all the other memories of the Twelve--the Sacred Tradition?

Your parallel question is even more pointed: Can an individual reader replace the interpretive community of the Church in historic breadth, in expertise, and in holiness?

Cheers,
Bruce

Answer 2

CJ,
I would love to be able to agree with you, but those don't really qualify as schisms, they are dissenters within the Roman Catholic communion. I am sure that you know other Christians with whom you disagree over this or that doctrine. That doesn't count as a schism does it? To the question at hand, there are many well trained Protestant ministers out there. There are also some who aren't as well trained. Having been a Protestant you should know that many, many Protestants are very knowledgeable in biblical languages and hermeneutics.

Answer 3

For some store-front churches in bad neighborhoods, the only thing that is "required" is being able to talk in a somewhat entertaining fashion while waving a Bible around, (actually, it probably doesn't even have to be a Bible, any large black book would probably work).

The main reason for the schisms in Christianity is that the Catholic church, (or any other part of the religion), didn't have enough military might to completely repress all ideas they considered unorthodox.

Every religion that is not able to successfully use violence to maintain its beliefs will have schisms. People are always going to come up with different ideas and the only way to keep them from forming into groups based on those ideas is by using physical force.

Even using physical force, you will only be able to stop openly public schisms. (Unless maybe your inquisitors manage to get their hands on some sort of perfect lie-detector).

The only other way that you could have a religion that didn't have a problem with schisms would be if you created a religion that was SUPPOSED TO have schisms in it.

Basically, commandment #1 would be "Think for yourself". Commandment #2 would be "If you don't want to think for yourself, find some random person and let them think for you until you feel like thinking for yourself."

Answer 4

Sola Scriptura would not make because. Nowhere interior the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole authority. as a rely of reality is says that the Church has the divine authority to control (Matt. sixteen:13-20 and Luke 10:sixteen). The Bible additionally tells us that the Church is the pillar and commencing up of reality (Tim. 3:15). finally, the Bible for sure states that no longer each thing is recorded interior the Bible (John 21:25) So how can the Bible be the sole authority while it for sure says that it is not? God bless, Stanbo

Answer 5

How can non catholic ministers be trained when the majority of them become an ordained minister for $25.00 for an ad in the Enquirer or off the internet. The majority of non Catholic minsters only preach what they think the bible says and what some other $25 minister has preached. In my opinion if they had been trained properly then their preaching would not differ from that of the Catholic Church.

Answer 6

NO BIBLE ONLY (Sola Scriptura)

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.
Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity," Christianity can only be fully grasped by understanding it for what it is: the Old Covenant growing into the New Covenant, the fulfillment of the Old Testament religion, the organic result of the coming of the expected Messiah Who was Himself from the Tribe of Judah. Tradition and earthly authority have always been an extremely important part of this.
To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical.



NO FAITH ALONE: (Sola fide)

Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? Why didn't he use the specific phrase in his New Testament writings.
A thorough study of his epistles reveals he used the word faith over 200 times.....but not once did he couple them with "alone" or "only".

Paul used the word "alone more than any New Testament writer. Even while Paul was teaching the nature of justification, he was aware of the word "alone" and its qualifying properties.

Although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using "faith alone", he intentionally allowed James to make a clear and forceful point by inspiring him with the words, "man is justified by works and not by faith alone".(James 2:24),

Paul's use of the word "faith" with theological meaning and implications that absolutely preclude it with being coupled with the word "alone".

Scripture written by Paul was this God-given wisdom which prevented him from joining the word "alone" with "faith".

Answer 7

The impact of personal interpretation leads minister A to start up Joe's Lightning Rod Ministries and Minister B to start up Mountiantop Messiah Holy Rollies and on and on and on with each claiming to be Christian, each claiming to be the "right" church, yet none believe the same as the other. I thought ALL of Christianity was supposed to be united in one faith, one church, and one doctrine?

Answer 8

the hilarious thing about the sola scriptura argument (which is used only by protestants) is that the canon of the new testament was decided by catholics at the synod of hippo in 393 anyway.

(before 393 there were lots of other gospels:- the gospel of thomas, the gospel of judas, the gospel of mary magdalene - which the early catholics just threw away).

so protestants rely wholly on the bible - but it is the catholic bible which they rely on.

God is such a joker, especially when He is poking fun at human arrogance.

Answer 9

1) I suggest you read this article:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0507bt.asp

2) As usual, CJ (above me) is trying to confuse by spreading disinformation, which is the same as telling lies. The Church teaches ONE set of doctrines. You cannot say the same about protestantism.

Answer 10

Amazing how the fundies are so absent when they cant use their chick tracts.