Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Markie Boy]

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians.

I am not sure, if it's a participation in Jesus Resurrection - to participate is to experience something. So given that, does it mean she was resurrected? If one participates in a race, you are racing.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You should provide the actual quotation from the Catechism rather than your own rendition so that we all may know what the Catholic Church teaches. Mary was "assumed" into Heaven, the Catechism does not say she was resurrected. In Heaven Mary participates in "the glory" of her Son's resurrection.

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:


This is the full quote, and I did quote the relevant part in my original post, for which I gave my thoughts. This being a discussion forum, we talk about what we think. What I said was not inconsistent with the Catechism, and in the work The Mystical City of God by blessed Mary Agreda, Mary said she chose to die to participate in death as her Son also died. My words are not dogma, you are free to disagree but should provide a basis for that disagreement

 

[Nagomirov]

 

[discombobulated1]

Let me address a few of the responses that have been offered so far:

• "The Other Paul": Deuteronomy 8:3 proves Sola Scriptura. (Original Debate) {Attacking P3}
• Jimmy Akin: I agree that man lives by the word of God, but this includes God's word as passed down in writing and in oral tradition. Even in the Old Testament itself the word of God was passed on authoritatively by oral tradition.

• "The Other Paul": We can no longer discern which doctrines really came from the Apostles, so we must default to Scripture. (Original Debate) {Attacking P1}
• Jimmy Akin: This is an argument from history, not from Scripture. Further, the premise that apostolic doctrine is unknowable is not granted, and itself seems to presuppose Sola Scriptura.

I read this far, don't have a lot of time. But I know that Tradition (the Church) put together the Bible, not the other way around! The Bible did not produce itself, obviously. The Church produced it (clergy therein) and many Protestants accept that as historical truth. But they often claim that the Church apostatized somewhere in the 4th century-- when Jesus promised that His Church was forever, could not be overcome even bySatan himself... Mt 16:18. With Francis at the helm, it looks like Satan has won, but he hasn't... As they say, things are not always as they seem.

The Bible was not written (the New T) until some 60 years after the Apostles died. Maybe some books were written 40 years after, but in any case, then there was the problem of not being able to mass produce the Bible, so only the Catholic Churches had copies and they had to chain them to a podium or something so they wouldn't be stolen. They were mass produced after the invention of the printing press in 1440.

So if you go by sola scriptura, the only scriptura we had for 1500 years after Christ ascended was the Bible at the local Catholic Church and HORRORS, the priest was the one reading it to us at Mass (some were illiterate way back then). Some claim the priests made up things... But the way I look at is

Jesus promised that His Church would not fail --and you have to take Him at His word.. Most priests had a great fear of God and would never tell the illiterates the Bible said thus and so if the Bible did not indeed say thus and so

 

[Markie Boy]

So often I think we forget what the church is. The word church means "a called out people". The word church does not mean an institution. The church is not defined by walls.

And I don't think Sola Scriptura is self refuting. 2 Tim 3:16-17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That pretty much says Scripture is enough.

 

[com7fy8]

Where does Scripture tell us that all things must be tested by Scripture?

What about Hebrews 5:13-14?

 

[jas3]

So often I think we forget what the church is. The word church means "a called out people".

This is an etymological fallacy. The use of the word in the New Testament and the early Christians' writings after those in the Bible indicate the existence of the church as an institution.

And I don't think Sola Scriptura is self refuting. 2 Tim 3:16-17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

That pretty much says Scripture is enough.

This is the same argument that was addressed in the second post in this thread, see the argument from Jordan B. Cooper.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What about Hebrews 5:13-14?

Huh? How does that verse say what you want it to say?

 

[com7fy8]

Where does Scripture tell us that all things must be tested by Scripture?

I think of Hebrews 5:13-14.

According to this, we have "senses" for testing, not only God's word.

 

[Simon_Templar]

We all agree that scripture is authoritative.
Scripture itself tells us that the oral tradition is also authoritative.
Thus if you deny oral tradition you are denying the teaching of scripture.

2nd Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

If you do not hold to the traditions delivered by the Apostolic oral tradition, you are not following scripture.

 

[zippy2006]

Jimmy Akin recently debated James White on the same topic, and White is a much more formidable opponent than The Other Paul. I watched only part of the debate but I commented afterward:

I think there is an important way that the two sides tend to talk past each other (in this debate and more generally). Protestants seem to think, "Scripture is the highest authority, therefore Scripture is the only infallible authority." This is not an unintelligent inference. The trick is that while Catholics agree that Scripture is the highest authority ("inspired"), they believe that there are lower authorities which are also infallible (Pope, Council). This Catholic move is seldom understood or enunciated. Without this move Akin's responses will appear to be empty logic chopping. The honest Catholic response should be, "Practically speaking, I grant that nothing else rises to the level of being God-breathed, but it does not follow that nothing else is infallible." The Protestant will appreciate the corollary that the Catholic must acknowledge: If, per impossibile, an infallible Magisterial teaching contradicted Scripture, then Scripture would win out.

 

[Nagomirov]

Jimmy Akin recently debated James White on the same topic, and White is a much more formidable opponent than The Other Paul. I watched only part of the debate but I commented afterward:

Have you learned the point of view of Greek Orthodoxy and the Ancient Eastern Churches?