J
jmcrae
Guest
He is the source of your theology, is he not?It has nothing to do with Martin Luther LoL. You guys are more obsessed with him than we are
- Status
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Yep!So, what you are saying is that the Bible itself explicitly denies the concept of Sola Scriptura?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Not in every area, no. Much of his theology is based on the theology of someone much earlier than him, like Augustine, for example.He is the source of your theology, is he not?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Can you point to where Rome has any of the statements of Jesus that John doesnât record (that are necessary for salvation)?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I donât even think you need to go to Rome to prove that there is more information. Here is an entry from Wikipedia, explaining that even Protestents donât rely on Scripture alone.
Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.[2] The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. Luther said, âa simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without itâ. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bibleâs authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside of the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Martin Luther said, âThe true rule is this: Godâs Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.â[3]
Sola scriptura is one of the five solas, considered by some Protestant groups to be the theological pillars of the Reformation.[2] The key implication of the principle is that interpretations and applications of the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is viewed as subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. Luther said, âa simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without itâ. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bibleâs authority and to reject what Catholics considered to be Apostolic Tradition as a source of original authority alongside of the Bible, wherever Tradition did not have biblical support or where it supposedly contradicted Scripture.
Sola scriptura, however, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible. Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice. As Martin Luther said, âThe true rule is this: Godâs Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so.â[3]
W
With_Questions
Guest
OK. All of my questions relate to the fact that very well educated folks of good will who have studied Scripture must more than myself, who might love the Lord Jesus Christ more than I doâŚstill disagree amongst themselves as to what exactly the Bible teaches.
This certainly calls into question the âclearâ and âits own interpreterâ part of this definition. I would have to ask that if the Bible is its own interpreter how come nobody has provided me the definitive interpretor of the Bible.
This phenomenon partially undercuts the âfinal authorityâ part of this definition. We should agree that in the cases where the Bible is clear and direct that it is the final authority. For example if my children are caught thieving candy from the neighborhood school, I donât need an infallible interpreter to tell them this is against the Bible and something they should not do.
But again, what about the cases where people of good will,disagree. How can it be the final authority until those people of good will get their acts together and come to agreement.
I am not sure what is meant by self-authenticating.
R
ralphinal
Guest
What you have posted is one of the issues with the doctrine. The Catholic Church has raised that question for years
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I know there are things that Jesus said and did that is not recorded. Now, please show me where Rome has those things Jesus said and did that John didnât write down.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that you are reading too much into the implication. Rome does not say that anything was left out that should be in. We are saying that it is not accurate to say that the Bible alone holds everything taught by Jesus. For example, the Bible never says "Jesus said âI am God. Worship Me.â Now, the statements are there that show us this is the case. How can we be sure that the Apostles were not told that by Christ, thus becomming the teaching of the CHurch, but they left it out so that it would not seem like they were teaching polytheism?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
But it isnât a claim of sola scriptura that the Bible does hold everything Jesus ever said or did. So attacking that with the quotation from John is just another example of a strawman argument.
R
ralphinal
Guest
It would be if the argument did not include the idea that the Bible interprets itself or that it is the rule of faith. The books of the NT fall into two general catagories: biographical support for the claims of the Church and Correction/Teaching/re-inforcement. Now, the biographical books contain little information about what is to be done and exactly what we beleive. Is it illogical to say that Jesus told the 12 how to run his CHurch but that part was left out because they would teach others? This would mean that the Gospels and Acts were written to show the validity of the Claims of Jesus while the oral part of the CHurch was used to spread the faith. Then, the 12 would use letters to deal with specific issues or to support the new faith.
It seems clear that that was how the Church was set up in the first century. It also is logical that it stayed along that path forever. After all, there are no provisions in the Bible for using the Bible alone to teach or set up the Church.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
In the way that you have divided up the NT, what is lacking from it for the function of the Church and her doctrine?
J
jmcrae
Guest
They are contained in the Oral Tradition - which Protestants reject because of the fact that it is an oral tradition (and thus, canât possibly be from Christ, since itâs not in the Bible, because where are the things Jesus said that are not in the Bible?
- and round and round and round we go, where weâll stop, no one can know!)
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
We donât reject it because itâs an oral tradition from the apostles, but we cannot establish that many of the things that are claimed by Rome to be oral tradition does come from the apostles.They are contained in the Oral Tradition - which Protestants reject because of the fact that it is an oral tradition (and thus, canât possibly be from Christ, since itâs not in the Bible, because where are the things Jesus said that are not in the Bible?
Again, where in oral tradition can I find the things Jesus said and did that arenât recorded in Scripture?
W
With_Questions
Guest
Well they are good questions that I have not received satisfactory answers to.
However, I do not think that it necessarily follows from these questions that the solution is the existence of an interpretor of the Bible that is incapable of being incorrect.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The best way to approach this would be to pick one subject, look it up in the Universal Catechism (the one with the green cover) and follow the footnotes back to the original sources. It would probably take a lifetime to cover everything - the Oral Tradition is rather large.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
It is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
The first Christians âdevoted themselves to the apostlesâ teachingâ (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: âIt is more blessed to give than to receiveâ (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1â4).
Whatâs more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians âthrough the Lord Jesusâ (1 Thess. 4:2).
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely humanâby listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christâs Church. Without the Catholic Churchâs teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the âcanon of Traditionâ by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be âthe pillar and foundation of the truthâ (1 Tim. 3:15).
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
So let me get this right. The tradition of the apostles states that we should listen to the Magisterium of the Church in order to know faithfully what Christ and the apostles said and taught that isnât recorded in Scripture.
Yet the only way we know that the apostles stated that we should listen to the Magisterium of the Church is because the Magisterium of the Church has said this is what the apostles said.
Do you honestly expect us to believe this form of circularity is in any way, shape, or form, valid?
By the way, I have a copy of the Sacred Scriptures in front of me. Do you know where I can find a book that contains the Sacred Traditions - all of them?
J
jmcrae
Guest
And also everything that is - keep in mind, it was the Magisterium that gave us the Bible, too. It didnât just fall from the sky, or appear under a rock.
The bottom line is that the Magisterium is the guardian of all Christian teaching. The original membership of the Magisterium was the Apostles, and they were careful in their selection of successors. The Holy Spirit also plays a very active role in making sure that the Magisterium cannot depart from the true faith.
Itâs actually more linear than circular, since it originates in Christ and travels down through time until the present day. Your argument is a bit like saying that there is something the matter with the scientific method, because working scientists recommend it, but those who donât follow the scientific method are not generally accepted in the scientific community. (Is it a circular argument to say that a scientist is someone who uses the scientific method, because thatâs what scientists recommend doing?
)You got it from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. There were three councils of Bishops who did the research that showed us which books belonged in the Bible, and then Pope Innocent I made an Infallible Declaration listing and closing the canon of the Scriptures.
The Universal Catechism contains a basic summary of them. Follow the footnotes to get to the original sources.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Interpretation of verses for one. Another would be practices for services. Would it be logical that the early Church would have a ritual (name removed by moderator)lace for all services to be the same? SHow me the service guide in scripture.
- Status