Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[inkaneer]

My point exactly-- but you said earlier that the Palestinian Jews accepted the deuteros (including the Greek writings) into their canon but later, because of Jesus, rejected them. That doesnt jive with what you just wrote in bold. If they were subsequently stricken from the Jerusalem canon because they were not written in Hebrew, what leads you to believe they were ever accepted by the Palestinian/Jerusalem Jews? We know that the Alexandrian Jews for the most part accepted them, this Im not debating at all. What evidence or writings do we have to back up the original claim that the Palestinian Jews accepted them?? Thats my point, we dont! At best, we have a “theory”, with nothing concrete at all to back it up. Personally, I really dont care as a Christian (Catholic) whether they did or not, but in discussing the deuteros apologetically, being honest with myself, looking always for the truth, until some evidence is presented, how can we make such a claim in good conscience?

I agree that evidence is needed. But if the Septuagint was traslated from the Jewish scriptures in 200-250BC as is commonly accepted then it only reasonable to think that the deuteros were included in those Jewish scriptures unless we have evidence of another source for them. Do we have such evidence? I have never heard of another source. Have you?

Already read it, long ago. I think it says in the same article that the 3 books discussed earlier were “most certainly” composed in Greek. Like I said earlier, Im not dissing the deuteros, but that name was applied to them for a reason. It seems, regardless of the official Church position, that there has always been some debate as to their canonocity. Perhaps I should have worded my statement differently-- I dont look upon them as “less inspired” than the protos, even though they have always been “less accepted”. The passage from Wisdom posted earlier in my opinion is very strong proof of 2 things:

1.) Wisdom was/is definitely inspired.
2.) The Gospel writers were definitely familiar with it.

Peace

But there is another deuterocanon in the New Testament. Some NT writings were “less accepted” than the others. The epistle to the Hebresws was one of these. So I would not force too great an emphasis on books being “deutero” canonical. Bottom line is they are canonical.

 

[fdesales]

But there is another deuterocanon in the New Testament. Some NT writings were “less accepted” than the others. The epistle to the Hebresws was one of these. So I would not force too great an emphasis on books being “deutero” canonical. Bottom line is they are canonical.

Exactly

James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation all are considered NT Deuterocanonical. It appears that Protestants accept these as Scriptural, despite their disputed natures.

Regards

 

[ChadS]

Exactly

James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation all are considered NT Deuterocanonical. It appears that Protestants accept these as Scriptural, despite their disputed natures.

Regards

I think this sort of discussion about the origins of the canon and how it came to be accepted are great and it really does put another nail in the Sola Scriptura coffin. Unfortunately to most of our separated brethern this sort of information seems inconsequential or of little use to them. It doesn’t affect their worldview one bit.

ChadS

 

[MonFrere]

I think this sort of discussion about the origins of the canon and how it came to be accepted are great and it really does put another nail in the Sola Scriptura coffin.

Being the author of this thread the following was presented as being “another nail in the Sola Scriptura coffin.” Sola Scriptura MUST be viewed as a tradition because it’s not a part of scriptural revelation. As a “tradition” it doesn’t pass Jesus’ test as to being a valid tradition because it “voids the Word of God”. Without the authority of the Church the Bible becomes a book where no one can really know what the Word of God means – making it (the Bible) void of its authority as being the “word of God”. Thus SS wouldn’t meet Jesus’ test as being a valid tradition.

(Mat 15:6 NRSV) So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.

Protestants are quite fond of bringing up any scripture that mentions tradition and then proceed to beat up Catholics with it since they presume they are based solely on the Word of God (the Bible) and not tradition. However, the major rallying cry of the Reformation was “SOLA SCRIPTURA”. If a Protestant will not accept this as a Protestant tradition they are self-deceived – at best.

But Jesus Himself gave us A standard (which IMO is not the only standard by any means - but a good one for this conversation) by which to judge tradition. Tradition CANNOT void the Word of God. For the sake of helping the Protestant let’s limit our focus on the Word of God to the Bible. Tradition cannot make void the Bible. Does SOLA SCRIPTURA pass that test? NO, in fact, it fails miserably. Why? because with all the various “interpretations” of scripture that this Protestant Template has devised it has effectively emasculated the Bible and effectively made it VOID and of NONE EFFECT. Thereby SOLA SCRIPTURA fails Jesus’ test because no honest soul seeking truth can find security in what other honest sincere souls say the Bible means. SOLA SCRIPTURA makes the Bible ineffective and useless.

For the sake of the Protestant tradition of SOLA SCRIPTURA, you have made void the word of God.

 

[adriancombe]

That would be one opinion and just that an opinion. Sacred tradition is simple the Word of God. Extraneous tradition is that outside of the word of God and changes it. This is what the Pharisees got in trouble for.

This is a confusing way of expressing your ideas and I recommend reformulating. Because you seem to come from a protestant background, some might infer that you equate ‘Word of God’ with Scripture as opposed to oral tradition. In fact, more often than not in the NT, the reverse is the case. I borrow here from a post I made in another thread.

Aside from referring to Christ Himself, the phrase ‘word of God’ can mean not only Scripture, but also the Gospel of Christ as proclaimed by the Church orally. The occurences of the latter far outnumber those of the former in the NT. In fact, in the Acts of the Apostles,every instance of the term ‘word of God’ refers to the oral proclamation of the Gospel by the Church:

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [unto them], and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Act 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.
Act 13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to [their] minister.
Act 13:7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Act 18:11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

So it is invalid to conclude that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I see. Denying Sola Scriptura in no way denys grace. Baptism is just another “doctrine” invented by men? You will never find a Catholic that denies that Christ’s death was somehow insufficient. If that’s what you believe Catholic theology teaches than perhaps you should brush up on that a little before telling us what the Church teaches.

ChadS

You are well aware of the saying that “actions speak louder than words” and this is very true. If one, and there are Protestant denominations that believe the same, that you must “do something” (baptism for example) to be justified before God, then one has nullified the gift of grace, which by definition says it is “unmerited favor”, therefore nothing one could do, can merit favor, for God when it comes to justification, which is positionally equivalent to being saved from the penalty of sin and the due wrath of God; which is why justified before God is the gift of salvation.

I’m not asking you to agree nor disagree; just stating what the gospel of grace and peace with God is. Praise god for His mercy on sinners.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Being the author of this thread the following was presented as being “another nail in the Sola Scriptura coffin.” Sola Scriptura MUST be viewed as a tradition because it’s not a part of scriptural revelation. As a “tradition” it doesn’t pass Jesus’ test as to being a valid tradition because it “voids the Word of God”. Without the authority of the Church the Bible becomes a book where no one can really know what the Word of God means – making it (the Bible) void of its authority as being the “word of God”. Thus SS wouldn’t meet Jesus’ test as being a valid tradition.

What you just wrote makes no sense; whether the church ever existed would not change the Word of God, which is the Bible. Just as the teaching of men does not change the Word of God.

God is very much a Sola Scripturaist and He had plenty to say to those who thought differently such as Matthew 23.

Jesus said man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; not the church.

Psalm 19 makes it pretty clear as well:
The Works and Word of God

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

1The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament showeth his handiwork.

2Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night showeth knowledge.

3There is no speech nor language,
where their voice is not heard.

4Their line is gone out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

5which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6His going forth is from the end of the heaven,
and his circuit unto the ends of it:
and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

***7The law of the LORD is perfect,
converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple.

8The statutes of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes.

9The fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring for ever:
the judgments of the LORD are true
and righteous altogether.***

***10More to be desired are they than gold,
yea, than much fine gold:
sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11Moreover by them is thy servant warned:
and in keeping of them there is great reward.***

The bolded black is His Word and the bolded blue are the results of those who trust in them alone.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

This is a confusing way of expressing your ideas and I recommend reformulating. Because you seem to come from a protestant background, some might infer that you equate ‘Word of God’ with Scripture as opposed to oral tradition. In fact, more often than not in the NT, the reverse is the case. I borrow here from a post I made in another thread.

Aside from referring to Christ Himself, the phrase ‘word of God’ can mean not only Scripture, but also the Gospel of Christ as proclaimed by the Church orally. The occurences of the latter far outnumber those of the former in the NT. In fact, in the Acts of the Apostles,every instance of the term ‘word of God’ refers to the oral proclamation of the Gospel by the Church:

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [unto them], and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
Act 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.
Act 13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to [their] minister.
Act 13:7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Act 18:11 And he continued [there] a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

So it is invalid to conclude that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith.

Again, whether the voice of God is spoken or written has no effect on the fact it is what He has said. How many times in the NT does the writer use a phrase such as “it is written”? Numerous! How many times does a NT writer say “it was orally stated” or to that effect, none? Why? Because the writers were given the revelation by God, as Jesus promised, whether by letter or by recalling and citing orally. The oral and the written are the same message unless one believes there are two gospels, one written and another verbal. Which is a good point here because all of the false gospels either add or subtract from the context of Scripture. I don’t know who said it, but one or more of you said something to the effect that without the “church” how would one be able to understand the Word of God? The answer is found in the Word of God; God tells us who and how one can understand and who and why one cannot understand and the church has absolutely nothing to do with it. Read for yourself; the key words are “spirit”, Holy Spirit", “helper” or “guide”…I believe a simple word study should reveal an understanding to the questions I just posed.

I believe I have received a great blessing by coming to know the Lord very late in life because I had no expectations or preconceived notions. Maybe I am wrong on that because at the same time I wish i knew the Lord much sooner, but God has His timing for everything and I just remain thankful.

 

[MonFrere]

What you just wrote makes no sense; whether the church ever existed would not change the Word of God, which is the Bible. Just as the teaching of men does not change the Word of God.

What you just wrote, that I put in BOLD above ISN’T SCRIPTURALLY ACCURATE…

VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE – In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Protestants far too often have this automatic reflex where every time they see THE WORD - they automatically think BIBLE. This is absurd! The opening of St. John’s gospel is just one of scores of examples where this absurdity is demonstrated – In the beginning was THE BIBLE and the BIBLE was with God and the BIBLE was God. Pretty ridiculous.

God is very much a Sola Scripturaist and He had plenty to say to those who thought differently …

Let’s take the VERY VERSES in Psalm 19 that you quote to demonstrate this AGAIN – your Protestant view that God’s Word is a slam dunk reference to the Bible isn’t accurate.

Jesus said man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; not the church.

But when Jesus made this statement he wasn’t pitting the “scriptures” AGAINST the Church. Catholics will not do this. We honestly do view the Bible as the written WORD OF GOD. PERIOD. End of discussion. Of course Jesus made this statement to Satan who also used scripture to try to use God’s word against Him. And why not – it worked like a charm with the first Adam when he said “DID NOT GOD SAY”. Unfortunately, it wasn’t so effective with the second Adam. Of course, with the first Adam there were no written scriptures - poor Adam had to take GOD’S WORD for it without any written record - and the Word of God had just as much authority as scripture ever did.

Psalm 19 makes it pretty clear as well:
The Works and Word of God

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.

1The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament showeth his handiwork.

2Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night showeth knowledge.

3There is no speech nor language,
where their voice is not heard.

Read the above – what is being equated as THE WORD OF GOD? It is the heavens. The glory of the heavens, because of their great wonder, as said to UTTER SPEECH. In other words - THE WORD OF GOD can speak to us through God’s creation. Psalm 19 is not talking about the written scriptures at all; but you are superimposing this meaning into this psalm. If you take the last verses to exclusively mean scripture when it speaks of “The Law of the LORD” “The statutes of the LORD” etc. then the whole point which opens this psalm is lost. Verses 1-6 is speaking of creation and the heavens and in verses 7-11 suddenly and abruptly for no reason at all it’s talking of the Torah. The ancient Jewish people looked at the creation of the earth as a great cosmic TEMPLE. I think what is being spoken of here is a view of the creation that in its own silent way UTTERS THE SPEECH of the Law of God and gives reflection to the statutes of God in a way that actually would enhance the scriptural texts. So, in other words Psalm 19 is actually expanding the concept of scripture (the Word of God) to encompass more that the written - but to also include the vastness and wonder of the whole creation which in its own way UTTERS SPEECH. To me this is a FABULOUS lesson of scripture given in this psalm – and if one can, even for a moment, get out of their paradigm that all references to the “word of God” automatically = the written scriptures - I think one can have their eyes open to greater horizons of understanding that can deepen our respect for the God we serve.

MonFrere

 

[ccolley2]

Again, whether the voice of God is spoken or written has no effect on the fact it is what He has said. How many times in the NT does the writer use a phrase such as “it is written”? Numerous! How many times does a NT writer say “it was orally stated” or to that effect, none? Why? Because the writers were given the revelation by God, as Jesus promised, whether by letter or by recalling and citing orally. The oral and the written are the same message unless one believes there are two gospels, one written and another verbal. Which is a good point here because all of the false gospels either add or subtract from the context of Scripture. I don’t know who said it, but one or more of you said something to the effect that without the “church” how would one be able to understand the Word of God? The answer is found in the Word of God; God tells us who and how one can understand and who and why one cannot understand and the church has absolutely nothing to do with it. Read for yourself; the key words are “spirit”, Holy Spirit", “helper” or “guide”…I believe a simple word study should reveal an understanding to the questions I just posed.

I believe I have received a great blessing by coming to know the Lord very late in life because I had no expectations or preconceived notions. Maybe I am wrong on that because at the same time I wish i knew the Lord much sooner, but God has His timing for everything and I just remain thankful.

How does the Bible tell us to that we can tell the Spirit of Truth from the Spirit of Deception? Who is the “WE” in 1John4:6? When NT writers say, “it is written” they are referring to the OT scriptures…not the NT. Jesus says it many times…he certainly isn’t referring to the NT scriptures.

What is the “pillar and bulwark of Truth”?
CC

 

[adriancombe]

What you just wrote makes no sense; whether the church ever existed would not change the Word of God, which is the Bible.

It has already been more than amply shown that the term ‘Word of God’ as used in Scripture does not exclusively (or even primarily) refer to Scripture. See post #85 above.

 

[adriancombe]

Again, whether the voice of God is spoken or written has no effect on the fact it is what He has said.

Ok…you just agreed with St. Paul and the Catholic Church in denying the heresy of Sola Scriptura. Did you miss it?

How many times in the NT does the writer use a phrase such as “it is written”? Numerous! How many times does a NT writer say “it was orally stated” or to that effect, none?

Please. Certainly you must realize the answer is not none!

1 Cor 11:24-25

John 1:23

John 1:33

John 1:43

John 1:47

The list goes on and on (and on) but i think you get the idea.

If you do a word search on akouo (hear) and anaginoskein (read) you will also notice a ‘disturbing’ pattern. In a world of no printing press and limited literacy, a God who imposed sola scriptura would be a sadistic one indeed.

 

[inkaneer]

You cannot prove that a group of Catholics sat around a table and came up with what you cited above; the discovery of what was already there is different than adding traditions/rituals that contradict the word of God…perhaps you agree to at least that much.

Yeah we can prove that a group of Cathpolics sat around a table and came up with the Hypostatic Union. The doctrine that the two natures of Christ were united in one person was established by Catholic bishops at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. In doing so they used Greek philosophical terms (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) which are entirely absent in the scriptures.

The sabbath was made exclusively for the Jewish theocracy; just as tithing was; you lack understanding about the purpose of the sabbath. The book of Acts makes it very clear that the Chruch met on the first day of the week, which would be Sunday, no one has to go to Revelation to figure that one out. Are you just making things up as you go or what?

But why did the church meet on the first day in defiance of the Commandment to honor the Sabbath? Where did the church get the authority to defy the commandment regarding the sabbath? Scripture doesn’t tell us that. If the early church would have gone by sola scriptura then Paul loses his battle with the Judacizers and the new converts must be circumcized just as the scripture claimed. But the church defied the written scriptures by claiming a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit when it said:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [Acts 15:28]

Clearly the early church was no sola scriptura believing organization. If it were we would be worshipping God on Saturday and performing all the works of the law.

 

[MonFrere]

Clearly the early church was no sola scriptura believing organization. If it were we would be worshipping God on Saturday and performing all the works of the law.

EXACTLY!! One of the most compelling arguments for this ex-Protestant to see IN SCRIPTURE was the reality of Jesus’ teaching and establishing of a Church. Protestants have to dance around all manner of scripture to tamp down this very clear teaching of Jesus. Catholic doctrine - though sometimes not what Iwould have liked it to be - was ALWAYS easily seen AT THE FACE VALUE READING OF THE TEXT.

I will build my Church

Peter says - You are the Christ!
Jesus says - You are Peter! (not Simon)

All authority has been given to me - Go therefore and baptize.

Hail! Full of Grace.

This is my body.

Behold! Your mother.

These simple phrases SHINE OUT as great beacons of light demonstrating crystal clear realities. Jesus says He’s going to build a Church - but Protestants say it’s a Church I cannot SEE. The command to baptize is clearly given - but Protestants say it’s not necessary for salvation because that would create a salvation by works. What nonsense!
Jesus said This is my body which is given for you. But this is only a symbol - Protestants say. Then - logically why aren’t we keeping the Jewish Passover. The Passover Lamb SYMBOLICALLY had no need to be changed. It was the greatest SYMBOL in all of Judaism of salvation. There would have been absolutely no need to change a SYMBOL when a perfectly profound one was already established. If Jesus wanted to make a symbolic point - He could have taken the Passover lamb passed it around to all the disciples and said - THIS IS MY BODY. Point made - rather profoundly, too. No, something far greater was going on at THIS Last Supper - made by the point blank reality of the words - THIS IS MY BODY.

MonFrere

 

[inkaneer]

exactly!! One of the most compelling arguments for this ex-protestant to see in scripture was the reality of jesus’ teaching and establishing of a church. Protestants have to dance around all manner of scripture to tamp down this very clear teaching of jesus. Catholic doctrine - though sometimes not what iwould have liked it to be - was always easily seen at the face value reading of the text.

I will build my church

peter says - you are the christ!
jesus says - you are peter! (not simon)

all authority has been given to me - go therefore and baptize.

Hail! Full of grace.

This is my body.

Behold! Your mother.

These simple phrases shine out as great beacons of light demonstrating crystal clear realities. Jesus says he’s going to build a church - but protestants say it’s a church i cannot see. The command to baptize is clearly given - but protestants say it’s not necessary for salvation because that would create a salvation by works. What nonsense!
Jesus said this is my body which is given for you. But this is only a symbol - protestants say. Then - logically why aren’t we keeping the jewish passover. The passover lamb symbolically had no need to be changed. It was the greatest symbol in all of judaism of salvation. There would have been absolutely no need to change a symbol when a perfectly profound one was already established. If jesus wanted to make a symbolic point - he could have taken the passover lamb passed it around to all the disciples and said - this is my body. Point made - rather profoundly, too. No, something far greater was going on at this last supper - made by the point blank reality of the words - this is my body.

Monfrere

excellent!!!

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Timothy,

This group of Catholics gathering “around a table” is called the Council of Nicea and the Council of Chalcedon. And these two councils had to prove what could NOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITH SCRIPTURE ALONE. PERIOD!!

Revisionist history always plays to ones prejudiced; the books in the Bible were the ones that were most commonly used across all Christendom and any group of men gathering together to confirm what was already being used hardly constitutes Catholics giving us a Bible especially in light of the fact that it is from God and not men. If you choose to believe that the Bible was compiled by Catholics makes no difference to me nor changes reality.

Unfortunately, for you these assertions need to be proven FROM SCRIPTURE. Yes, the Church met on the first day of the week BUT BUT BUT this doesn’t meet the qualifications for the authority to revoke worship on the Jewish Sabbath. If it does - it doesn’t take much proving for you to be convinced - at least not near what a historian would require. This requires real honest to goodness GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY. Scripture doesn’t give us a clue as to when this occurred. We just know it did.

It is clearly written in the Bible, but I’ll leave you to find it. I’ll give you a couple of places to look and see and make up your own mind rather than believing the source of your misinformation. Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16.

I recommend you really address the questions given to you in both my recent posts. I gave you good examples that addressed your questions. What are your counter arguments? You’re going to have to do much better than simply slough it off and say that “I’m making this up”.

MonFrere
If you are not making things up as you go, then I would seek a different source for your information; my primary source is the Bible; what is yours?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

The Hypostatic Union is no where at all in scripture – not hinted at not alluded to - not considered - not conceived YET in is the pillar of orthodoxy for understanding the Incarnation.

The way scripture is philosophically set is Hebrew in origin. Philosophically, much of the information on the hypostatic union of Christ is arrived at through Greek philosophy. Jesus is one person with two natures, one divine and one human. The Hebrew Scriptures do not conceive of men in terms of “natures”. So, here is a clear example where the ECF and the Catholic Church, came to an understanding (a pivotal one and THE orthodox one) that didn’t in the least contradict scripture however, is not at all a part of scripture BUT IS NECESSARY for orthodox Christian belief. This doctrine would be impossible to arrive at through Sola Scriptura.

Also, as another example – the determination that the Christian Sabbath was transferred to Sunday is something given no warrant, for certain in the OT - and this goes further than what St. Paul considers in his writings. However, by the time of the writing of St. John’s Apocalypse there is the comment that this vision was given to him on “the Lord’s Day” – a cryptic reference to the early Christian Tradition of worship of Sunday that is found also in the writings of the ECF. The change was accomplished BY THE CHURCH and could not have been arrived “by scripture alone”. This took an authoritative Church to determine because if one went by scripture alone THE CHURCH WOULD BE KEEPING SATURDAY STILL AS THE SABBATH.

The ramifications of the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant and the Church now seeing Gentiles becoming members of this New Church had to be thought through BY THE CHURCH – the scriptures the early decades of the Church possessed were the OT and the OT would have you quickly deemed a heretic and stoned for any attempt to do what the early Christian Church did in establishing the Church of Christ.

And one final thought – if the scriptures are sufficient in themselves - why was there any need to ADD TO THE SCRIPTURES that Jesus Himself used. So, when is enough - enough. The Catholic Church could have existed fine without the establishment of the
NT Canon – Protestants Church would be at a loss without the NT for the very fact that they reject Sacred Tradition as being authoritative. I’m absolutely sure the Protestant Church would be FAR DIFFERENT without the NT Canon given to them by the authority of the Catholic Church. We probably would still have an element of the church desiring circumcision - another element keeping various aspects of the Mosaic Law - others keeping the Sabbath - others keeping outdated Jewish traditions.

MonFrere

If it wasn’t implicit in Scripture, which it is very much so, then they would not have made the “discovery”; completely different than adding something that is not explicit nor implicit. I would say it is more explicit because He was born and lived as a human; yet He abviously had the power of God to heal the sick and raise the dead. Seems pretty obvious, but to put that into words can be difficult, but it was always there.

Take something like immaculate conception; that is no where remotely implicit in Scripture, this is an example of man adding to what God revealed. Hopefully you see the difference, but my guess is that you do not.

 

[MonFrere]

Revisionist history always plays to ones prejudiced; the books in the Bible were the ones that were most commonly used across all Christendom and any group of men gathering together to confirm what was already being used hardly constitutes Catholics giving us a Bible especially in light of the fact that it is from God and not men. If you choose to believe that the Bible was compiled by Catholics makes no difference to me nor changes reality.

Timothy Timothy … please … the facts of history and what was discussed at the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon are not REVISED HISTORY. What we say happened is not different that what was said since the centuries they took place. The Catholic Church is not giving these ancient Councils a “new spin”. AND there is no revisionism going on in showing in the historical record that several of the books presently in the NT canon debated as to their inclusion in the NT canon. Again I state that the Catholic Church could have functioned very well without going through Church Councils to place her authority on a canon of NT scripture. However, the Protestant Church couldn’t survive and, in fact, almost didn’t survive when Martin Luther wanted to eliminate James from the canon because it didn’t validate HIS STANDARD for canonic inclusion - namely, giving support to his doctrine of justification by faith alone. Fortunately, for the Protestant movement cooler heads prevailed OR TODAY we might be arguing that the Catholics were so blind to see that the letter of St. James was prove positive of a gospel of works that was fomenting in the Church even in the apostolic age. And don’t tell me you wouldn’t try to do it – because there are Protestants who STILL try to make that argument. Had Luther prevailed NO DOUBT that would be your REVISIONIST SPIN – GUARANTEED!!

If you are not making things up as you go, then I would seek a different source for your information; my primary source is the Bible; what is yours?

THE KEY HERE is who is your primary source for interpreting the text of the Bible. Mine is the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. What’s yours?

MonFrere

 

[Timothy_Piper]

There is nothing in Scripture that is contrary to the Catholic faith and nothing in the Catholic faith that is contrary to Scripture. Can I name one? Yes, the Trinity, Bishops/presbyters/priests. And What about the passage at the end of John’s Gospel that says that everything that Jesus said and did was NOT written down…then there is…Tradition either by word of mouth or by letter…Paul refers to Tradition, but doesn’t tell us what the Tradition is…
1Cor 11:2
2Thess 2:15
2Thess 3:6

Also, we wouldn’t have a NT cannon if it weren’t for Sacred Tradition…The books that belonged in the New Testament were decided upon based on Tradition…the first writings of the NT were not written until 50 AD. By this time almost all the Apostles(exception of John) had been martyred for the faith.That means that for at least 20 years, the Christians depended on Traditions to teach them how to “do” “Church”. Also, the idea that John was the LAST apostle is based on Tradition. The Didache is one of the oldest writings that we have …it is also known as the Teaching of the Apostles - these were the Traditions that were passed down by word of mouth and passed on the Catechumens coming into the Church.
CC

I ask myself why I debate with Catholics when it comes to Scripture; none of you appear to read it or read and don’t understand what you read; can’t quite put my finger on yet…maybe a little of both.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in {eating of Jesus flesh}, and in prayers. - Acts 2

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. - Acts 15

***Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, ***with many others also. - Acts 15

The point of citing the passages above is to show that they were orally teaching the gospel and Paul was either preaching or writing the same message. Do you believe that?

Here is another point concerning your knowledge of Scripture, the detail, every jot and tiddle is important for it is God speaking. First, if it was not written down, then there is a good reason, we are not suppose to know, perhaps repetitive or do not need to know or perhaps God had other reasons unknown to us, but the point if it says it wasn’t written down than we don’t know it.

However, on your oversight into the passage it statement is as follows: “and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

You added the word “said” which changes the entire context of the passage; it is what Jesus “DID”. What do you suppose the Bible would look like if each miracle He performed were written in detail? It might come somewhat close to the extraneous writing of all the Catholic scholars through out the past several hundred years.

God’s word by mouth or by writing is still God’s word; is it man that decided it is God’s word? This must be your belief and your faith because it is what you defend.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

These Bible quotes you provided are interesting. First of all the quote from John is clearly about Jesus. If we read that one they way you propose we would have to believe that the Bible became flesh. Additionally the other two you provide say nothing about it or only limit it to the “written” word of God.

I see your interpretation of Scriptures is the one true interpretation because it’s all so obvious to you as you have read the Scriptures. As this thread has shown your interpretation is not even accepted by those of us who have indeed read the Scriptures. We have come to different conclusions, the difference is our conclusions are based in the living tradition and magisterium of the Church that Christ founded. Upon what is your interpretation based? Your own self-evident reading?

ChadS

I have doubts about the claims you make concerning the reading of Scripture, but assuming it is true, why do you not comprehend what you read?

It is not my concern if anyone agrees with me except God; He demands that we rightly divide the word of God so we do not have to be ashamed nor bring reproach on ourselves or His Word.

If our differences come from your source as being the magisterium, then that would certainly account for the differences; I have no magisterium. :nope: