Another Nail for the Sola Scriptura Coffin

[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 obviously 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.

But Elijah raised the dead. So did St. Peter and St. Paul. They also healed people - often. Let me give you the REAL ANSWER. Jesus RAISED HIMSELF from the dead!! It’s difficult to put in words, certainly, especially because it isn’t even attempted in the scriptures. Jesus explained His life BEFORE His Incarnation. He never remotely explained His person while living as a man on this earth. He said He was God – THAT got Him crucified. It was the Church that had to penetrate just WHO THIS PERSON, JESUS, WAS. Everyone was trying - everyone was using scripture - the Church was COMPELLED to avoid the Church from being rent asunder. This was a problem TOO BIG FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA. Examine the Church Councils. They didn’t feel compelled to use ONLY THE BIBLE to solve this dilemma of who Jesus was.

No Timothy. The Hypostatic Union says that Jesus in ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES - one human and one divine. These natures didn’t compete with each other for dominance. These natures didn’t somehow become homogenized into one nature. Each false view gets one into heresy. Nothing could have been more important to the early Church that to understand PRECISELY who Jesus was. For example – it must be understood that Jesus is in a state of being eternally begotten. But Scripture doesn’t state this with clarity. It only states He is the only begotten of the Father. So what’s a sola scriptura Christian going to do? You can’t get from A to B using scripture alone.

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.

That’s the topic for another thread so I PASS.

MonFrere

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As I said before, your very own citation of Mark’s Gospel proves you wrong. Jesus is not condemning “extra-biblical” tradition. If He was, He would have condemned much more than that, and He Himself would have been a hypocrite, since He also practiced Jewish religious customs and traditions.

Jesus is condemning a practice that circumvents the commandment of God. Naturally, it is extra-biblical, since an biblical command would not circumvent a commandment of God - unless someone misinterpreted one or the other. Jesus condemns the Pharisees who are hypocrites. Why are they hypocrites? Because they invent things not in Scriptures? Is that what you think??? Hardly. Hypocrisy = teaching one thing and doing another. You cannot possibly connect hypocrisy that Jesus condemns with “inventing extra-biblical traditions”. Jesus is condemning the act of circumventing God’s commands.

Thus, you misappropriate the Word of God to try to make a case for an extra-biblical tradition, which ironically, is an extra-biblical tradition. There is no biblical passage that backs up SOLA Scriptura. Even 2 Timothy does not say that the Bible ALONE is the only thing that perfects the Christian. I have already given you ANOTHER thing that perfects the Christian - the Church leaders and teachers, found at Eph 4:11-13. In addition, Paul tells this same Timothy that the CHURCH is the pillar and FOUNDATION of the Truth, not the Scriptures. Thus, even the Scriptures vouch for the Church…

Where does Paul state that oral tradition is abrogated? Where does Paul state that THIS letter contains the entirety of the “Gospel”, doctrine, liturgy, morals, and practice?

Where do we find the “expiration date” for oral tradition?

You doctrine is based upon a HUGE PRESUMPTION… That ANY writer INTENDED that HIS writings contained ALL that Christians need to know and believe. This points out an ignorance of the POINT of these letters were written in the first place…

The writers of the independent letters of what we NOW call the New Testament did not gather together and plan on writing a catechism or a systematic theological work. Nor does it cover EVERY DAY things that Christians just knew, such as HOW to perform baptism. Letters were generally exhortation in nature - or answering SPECIFIC questions or problems of the specific audience. Thus, we don’t see any writings about Eucharistic abuses to the Thessalonians. NOT because he had already written the Corinthians about it (1 thessalonians was written first!). Also, many communities were UNAWARE of other writings or epistles for quite some time. It was only later communities that COLLECTED these writings and judged them to be God’s Word. They are not self-authenticating, nor were they assimilated en masse to every community when first written.

Thus, knowing WHY Scriptures were written should be a clue to you that THEY ARE NOT INTENDED to be ‘sola’. Nor do THEY claim to be - they state that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible. If the Church is this foundation, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Bible becomes a tool of the CHURCH, not the other way around… Those men mentioned in Eph 4 utilize the Bible to teach, but not from it alone.

HOW can sola scriptura be self-evident if it is found in not one word of the bible? This is a self-defeating doctrine. IF everything we are to believe as Christians MUST be found in the Bible alone, where does the Bible actually state this CARDINAL rule??? Nowhere.

HOW can sola scriptura be self-evident if the BIBLE ITSELF is not self-evident as the Word of God???

The individual letters of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Revelation, do not CALL themselves “the Word of God”. Thus, without the pillar and foundation of the Truth, how do you even KNOW what is the “Word of God” so as to “know everything Christians should practice and believe”???

Regards

May I suggest you read all of Matthew 23; Jesus condemns them for many things and I suggest you look at key words written in Greek, such as hypocrite and bind and grieve and shut to name a few. The word “shut” in Matthew 23:13; describes the Pharisees as preventing people from entering His kingdom. How? Read on.

I see a real pattern here among your brothers and sisters about changing the Scripture; hopefully out of ignorance. The church is not the foundation of the truth. Look carefully at the Greek usage and you will find that it is incorrect and changes the context. The church’s job is to protect the the truth of God’s word, not invent; Sola Scriptura - check-mate!

You cannot show anything outside of Scripture that is of divine origin in the practice of the CHRISTIAN faith - Sola Scriptura - check-mate.

I nor God take kindly to those who have such a low regard for the Bible as you do; I have nothing further to discuss with you; you are very content in your faith and you should enjoy and get the most out of it for life is but a vapor for all of us, then the judgment for some and not for a few…

 

[Timothy_Piper]

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!!

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

Again; you can believe what you want about the Bible; you ignored the fact that God is the author and the one who brought it to us ultimately which is why I could careless about your Catholic preference on giving the Bible to the world.

I understand why we have such different understandings of Scripture; here is my source:

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2

And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it 1 john 2

“If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth; 2 for the truth’s sake which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever: 3 Grace, mercy, peace shall be with us, from God the Father, and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2 John 1

{that is} the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, {but} you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, {that is} the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

My comes from the Person of the HS; this certainly sets us apart since you make the claim yours comes from a church.

I leave you with this final word from God; perhaps you will see my point. Read Proverbs 2:
1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, And lay up my commandments with thee; 2 So as to incline thine ear unto wisdom, And apply thy heart to understanding; 3 Yea, if thou cry after discernment, And lift up thy voice for understanding; 4 ***If thou seek her as silver, And search for her as for hid treasures: ***5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of Jehovah, And find the knowledge of God. 6 ***For Jehovah giveth wisdom; Out of his mouth [cometh] knowledge and understanding: 7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the upright; ***[He is] a shield to them that walk in integrity; 8 That he may guard the paths of justice, And preserve the way of his saints. 9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness and justice, And equity, [yea], every good path.

10 For wisdom shall enter into thy heart, And knowledge shall be pleasant unto thy soul; 11 Discretion shall watch over thee; Understanding shall keep thee: 12 To deliver thee from the way of evil, From the men that speak perverse things; 13 Who forsake the paths of uprightness, To walk in the ways of darkness; 14 Who rejoice to do evil, And delight in the perverseness of evil; 15 Who are crooked in their ways, And wayward in their paths: 16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, Even from the foreigner that flattereth with her words; 17 That forsaketh the friend of her youth, And forgetteth the covenant of her God: 18 For her house inclineth unto death, And her paths unto the dead; 19 None that go unto her return again, Neither do they attain unto the paths of life: 20 That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, And keep the paths of the righteous. 21 For the upright shall dwell in the land, And the perfect shall remain in it. 22 But the wicked shall be cut off from the land, And the treacherous shall be rooted out of it.

 

[MonFrere]

I see a real pattern here among your brothers and sisters about changing the Scripture; hopefully out of ignorance. The church is not the foundation of the truth. Look carefully at the Greek usage and you will find that it is incorrect and changes the context. The church’s job is to protect the the truth of God’s word, not invent; Sola Scriptura - check-mate!

Oh please!! How have the Protestants done in “protecting the truth of God’s word”? When you’re not fighting Catholics you are dividing for every manner of reason EACH THINKING THEY ARE RIGHT. Sola Fide alla Luther was NEVER part of the doctrine of the Church UNTIL Luther. So, where does that put Christianity for its first 1,500 years? And - BTW - Sola Scriptura has NEVER effectively brought unity to the Protestant movement. It has been a boon for division in the body of Christ. The Bible itself does have some words to say about those who cause division among brothers! Not pretty ones either. Physician - heal yourself.

You cannot show anything outside of Scripture that is of divine origin in the practice of the CHRISTIAN faith - Sola Scriptura - check-mate.

And you cannot show that Sola Scriptura is in fact IN THE BIBLE. So, where does that lead you? You better give up on chess and try checkers or something. King me!!

MonFrere

 

[Timothy_Piper]

But Elijah raised the dead. So did St. Peter and St. Paul. They also healed people - often. Let me give you the REAL ANSWER. Jesus RAISED HIMSELF from the dead!! It’s difficult to put in words, certainly, especially because it isn’t even attempted in the scriptures. Jesus explained His life BEFORE His Incarnation. He never remotely explained His person while living as a man on this earth. He said He was God – THAT got Him crucified. It was the Church that had to penetrate just WHO THIS PERSON, JESUS, WAS. Everyone was trying - everyone was using scripture - the Church was COMPELLED to avoid the Church from being rent asunder. This was a problem TOO BIG FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA. Examine the Church Councils. They didn’t feel compelled to use ONLY THE BIBLE to solve this dilemma of who Jesus was.

No Timothy. The Hypostatic Union says that Jesus in ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES - one human and one divine. These natures didn’t compete with each other for dominance. These natures didn’t somehow become homogenized into one nature. Each false view gets one into heresy. Nothing could have been more important to the early Church that to understand PRECISELY who Jesus was. For example – it must be understood that Jesus is in a state of being eternally begotten. But Scripture doesn’t state this with clarity. It only states He is the only begotten of the Father. So what’s a sola scriptura Christian going to do? You can’t get from A to B using scripture alone.

That’s the topic for another thread so I PASS.

MonFrere

You still miss the point, if it was not either very implicit or explicit, then it could not be discovered; you are arguing with yourself. Sola Scriptura is very implicit, those that deny it have a problem with the good news because in it is salvation…viva sola scriptura. I wonder if you know what Scripture means when it refers to begotten?

I don’t blame you for passing on the other; it is off topic and impossible to show from Scripture.

Good night; got to get some rest and maybe i’ll speak with you tomorrow.

Blessings,

Timothy

 

[MonFrere]

You still miss the point, if it was not either very implicit or explicit, then it could not be discovered;

OK I’ll make this simple. Prove the Hypostatic Union using sripture alone. You have the floor all to yourself. Give it your best shot.

MonFrere

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Traditions outside of Scripture is what Jesus was ticked about.
.

One of the most ridiculous statements ever have I seen on this forum Kudos for that. I shall back up my fellow compratriot Monfere on this issue. Before I delve into the nitty gritty detail of this argument I would like to point out that Bert, the principal Protestant critic has frequently cited many sources, but cited wikipedia. Sir while I do realize wikipedia has valid information and cites other outside sources to be checked. It should be frown upon for use in a scholarly debate, as it simply cannot be thoroughly trusted as to its accuracy. And is universally regarded as an unscholarly source. That said, I perhaps I shall clear this issue up and broaden some view points? Let’s get down to buisness CAF’ers.

 Ahhh Sola Scriptura, just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? In fairness Protestant fellows this is a Catholic designation of the "Bible-alone" doctrine and at times can seem a pejorative one. So let's take a look at why this "Bible-alone" doctrine is embraced, why it is illogical, and really contrary to Christian Faith shall we?

 Sola Scriptura teaches that of course as has been established by the thread, is the sole rule of Faith as interpreted by the individual believer for a Christian. We Catholics on the other hand hold that the direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church, the Church in turn takes her teaching from divine Revelation which is both the Written Word, or Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition". The teaching authority or "Magesterium" of the Church, is not itself a source of divine Revelation. However it does have a God charged mission to interpet and teach both Scripture and Tradition. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther a 16th century German monk who started the Protestant Reformation. Luther was passionate in his beliefs and in spreading them but this of course does not make them correct.

 One of the most notable reasons to reject Sola Scriptura is that there is not one verse in the Bible(any version no matter how butchered) in which it is taught. It therefore becomes a self-refuting doctrine, completely illogical. Now keep reading before you get up in arms with Scripture quotations please. Protestants will often refer to 2 Tim 3:1-17 or The Apocalypse 22:18-19 in Sola Scriptura defense. So let's examine them. 2 Tim 3:16-17 reads: "All Scripture,inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." The Greek word "Ophelimos" ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient". An example would be that water is useful for our existence actually necessary, but not "sufficient". The Greek word "pasa" which is often rendered as "all" actually means "every" and it has the sense of regerring to each and every one of the class denouted by the noun connected with it. In other words it reads that each and every Scripture is profitable. If Sola Scriptura were true, then based on the Greek in verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on it's own as the sole rule of faith, completely and utterly ABSURD! The "Scripture" St. Paul refers to is the OT. This is made known by his reference to Scriptures' being known by Timothy from "infancy". See verse fifteen please. The NT as we know it did not exist, or was incomplete, so it could not have been included in St. Paul's understanding of what "Scripture" was. If we take St. Paul's words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian's sole rule of faith! This is a premise that all of us as Christians can reject. (See Cont..)

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

(Cont…)

Protestant and Catholic Bibles differ there is no question about that. Another argument against Sola Scriptura is that most Protestant versions of the Bible are historically inadequate, I shall elaborate.

 A Catholic Bible has "more books" than a Protestant Bible. While each NT has the same amount of books the Catholic Old Testament has 46 whereas the Protestant version has 39, why? Many Protestants will claim the CC added seven books to the OT: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 2 Maccabees and parts of Daniel and Esther. Actually a one, Martin Luther departed from 1500 years of Christian tradition and subtracted these books. These missing books are called the Deuterocanonicals or in Protestant circles, "The Apocrypha". Now CAF'ers in Christs day the OT had NOT been determined. Different groups in Palestine honored different canons of Scripture. The Sadducees for example held that only the Pentateuch or the first five books of the Bible (Gen-Deut) were canon. The Samaritans the same with their own versions. The Pharisees had a canonical tradition roughly the same as the Protestant one today though the boundaries were not set. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls considered a few more books Scriptural however. Finally you had some Jews who honored a canonical tradition that is best represented today in the Septuagint translation of the OT. This Greek translation was made between 250-125 B.C. and is called Septuagint because of the number of translators that compiled it. Septuagint coming from the Latin word for 70. They compiled it's Pentateuch according to tradition.

 The real question in play here CAF'ers is which canon did Christ and His apostles use? In the time of Jesus, Hebrew as a language was dead, Palestinian Jews spoke Aramaic as many know and Greek was the common tongue. Not suprisingly the NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. According to Protestant authors, Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, the VAST majority of quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint but only 33 places does it cite the Hebrew canon. SOURCE: Gleason Arhcer and G.C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago, IL, Moody Press, 1983) xxv-xxxii. 
 Guess what CAF'ers?, that means that OVER 90% of the time by that count, the NT writers quoted the Septuagint, and remember the entire NT was written in Greek.

Now in 1529 Martin Luther proposed to adopt the canon used by rabbinic Judaism of 39 books as OT canon, Luther justified this by citing the concerns of St. Jerome. However UNLIKE St. Jerome who humble submitted his opinon in private and accepted full authority of the Church, Luther arrogantly challanged them and made his opinion public, maybe Luther forgot humility with all the Penance he was so famous for?

Another REAL question fellow CAF’ers is this, Which OT canon would you rather use, the OT used by the apostles and the NT writers, and the early Church, OR, the OT used by the later Jewish peoples who rejected Christ? If your Bible includes the seven books, you follow the apostles amd the other NT writers and the early Church. If your Bible omits them, you follow the NON-CHRISTIAN rabbis and Martin Luther, a man whose view of Sacred Scripture allowed him to deliberately add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28. in an attempt to throw out even more books of the Bible, including Esther, Revelation!!!=O and EVEN JAMES??? Which he dismissed as “an epistle of straw”. SOURCE: Stoddard’s Rebuilding a Lost Faith (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1990), 137

Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, may God bless her and grant us strength to be great Apologists in her favor. God bless, you all, God bless the Church, and God bless Catholicism,…Verum out.

 

[ccolley2]

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.

I was paraphrasing the last sentence in John…I disagree that adding the word “said” changes the whole context of the passage because as the passage says," written down in detail what he did"…if you write something down “in detail” you will include what is said in that account…just as the Apostles did when they wrote the Gospels.

but I think it is interesting that you wrote:
“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.”

Perhaps we just have a different understanding than you. You write as if you have the gift of infallibility when it comes to “understanding” scripture. Where is THAT in the Bible?

Peter, Paul and Barnabas were “preaching and Teaching” …where does it say they were writing things down at this time?

BTW, What is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth? The Bible? No, it is the Church. The Church existed long before the bible did. It preserved and protected the message of Jesus throughout time. That is why the church is the Pillar (a thing that holds something up) and Bulwark (something that strengthens it)of Truth.
CC

 

[JacobG]

Before defining what the principle of Sola Scriptura is, we need to first identify what it is not so that we are all on the same page. James White who has debated Catholics on this topic gives the following:

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, religious or otherwise.

It is not a denial of any Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

It does not deny that God’s Word has been spoken as well as written.

It does not imply rejection of every kind or form of ‘tradition.’

It does not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and teaching the Church

The error that the RCC makes is their assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith. Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

 

[VerumAdInfernos]

Before defining what the principle of Sola Scriptura is, we need to first identify what it is not so that we are all on the same page. James White who has debated Catholics on this topic gives the following:

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, religious or otherwise.

It is not a denial of any Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

It does not deny that God’s Word has been spoken as well as written.

It does not imply rejection of every kind or form of ‘tradition.’

It does not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and teaching the Church

The error that the RCC makes is their assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith. Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

Flase firstly you have failed to adequate cite the source you quote. Secondly you are flatly wrong about this, see my first post for it’s official definition. Post two good posts and no one reads it, go figure.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

Let us not create our own revisionist history in the process. The fact is that while some books were accepted almost universally that was not the case across the board. There were those areas that accepted only three gospels and 13 letters of Paul. Compare the listings of the various church fathers before Athanasius in 348 AD and you will find some writings such as “The Shepherd”, “Protoevangelium of James” and other writings to include some Gnostic writings. Yeah we believe the canon of the Bible was given by God but it was given by God through His church. Unless, of course, you believe it suddenly dropped out of the sky leather bound, gilt edged with, in 16th century king’s English with the words of Jesus in red ink.

 

[ChadS]

Before defining what the principle of Sola Scriptura is, we need to first identify what it is not so that we are all on the same page. James White who has debated Catholics on this topic gives the following:

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, religious or otherwise.

It is not a denial of any Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

It does not deny that God’s Word has been spoken as well as written.

It does not imply rejection of every kind or form of ‘tradition.’

It does not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and teaching the Church

The error that the RCC makes is their assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith. Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

We’ve all heard these same claims about Sola Scriptura before, they always say the same thing: “We don’t deny this or that and we believe in other kinds of authority,” which makes it sound like you deny doing what you actually do in practice.

The crux of it all comes down to your last sentence for you though, despite what you said before:

Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

For Sola Scriptura advocates, at the end of the day, if they don’t like one church’s interpretation you either don’t go there or go to church at all. If you don’t like something another Christian wrote either last week, last year, or last millenium you’re free to ignore it no matter it’s origin. If you don’t think the spoken Word of God lines up with what you believe is in scripture then it’s obviously not from God.

What I’m saying is you profess one thing – that there are other sources of authority besides the scripture, but when push comes to shove the default position always, always prevails and that is – show it to me in the Bible. Everything else that is said melts away and gives away to what you think the Bible says.

ChadS

 

[inkaneer]

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.

I know why. You see Catholicism as a threat to your way of understanding the scripture. There is enough of the idea that maybe, just maybe, these guys may be right that constitutes a threat to the way you have been taught to understood the scriptures. Here is what you should do. Go back in history to a time before the reformation and ask what did the church believe then? Did it believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or was it only a symbol? How did the church worship? Did the church have a pope, an earthly leader? Did the early church believe in sola scriptura? Take the doctrines of your denomination and try to fit them into that early church. Then do the same with Catholicism. What you will find is your denominations beliefs don’t fit at all. You will also find that the early church was quite Catholic. And you won’t be the first to discover that protestantism in any of its forms has no historical basis before the 16th century.

 

[fdesales]

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, religious or otherwise.

Only knowledge that we are allowed to believe…

It is not a denial of any Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

Only as long as the Church teaches what is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, the bible rolleyes

It does not deny that God’s Word has been spoken as well as written.

It claims that the oral traditions have expired and have been swallowed up by the written Scriptures. Haven’t yet found that in the bible yet, though…

It does not imply rejection of every kind or form of ‘tradition.’

As long as the tradition is actually EXPLICITLY found in the Scriptures, thus, contradicting #1.

It does not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and teaching the Church.

As long as the pillar and foundation of the Truth sticks ONLY to the Bible. No doubt, Paul taught Christians only with the bible…

The error that the RCC makes is their assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith.

The issue is that there IS NO SUCH RULE that states that the Scripture is adequate as the rule of faith. It is not.

WHO INTERPRETS IT??? A book does not always interpret itself. All one has to do is read the history of heresy. Both sides bring out their verses and proof text each other. Without authority, who is correct? And what does Jesus say about Christians in disagreement???

But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matt 18:17-18

Note, there is an authority HIGHER than “two or three Christians” with a Bible in their hand… There is a Church, which presumes that these Christian actually KNOW WHERE TO GO TO FIND IT - and it cannot mean a few more Christians with Bibles. It must refer to an accepted authority that has the power to excommunicate (as the end of the pericope state)

Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

Sufficient???

the word used is ōphelimos, which is interpreted “profit” or “an advantage”.

This word is used three times in Scriptures. Once is 2 Tim 3:16. Here are the others…

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 1 Tim 4:8

Is bodily exercise the ONLY thing that profits little in the spiritual realm, the context here? Of course not. Many things “profit little”, like idle entertainment, money, gossiping, and other such things that move people from God. Thus, here, “profitable” in no way means “all inclusive”. Or even “sufficient”.

[This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Titus 3:8

Funny, your interpretation would destroy sola fide!!! You ready to do that???

It is amazing that such a huge presumption is based upon ONE WORD misinterpreted in Scriptures… Clearly, there are many things “PROFITABLE” for the Christian…

Giving alms is profitable.
Praying is profitable.
Read Scriptures is profitable. (doesn’t say we form our doctrine from this, just that it is profitable to build up the saint, just as these others do)
Fasting is profitable.

We could go on. But clearly, 2 Tim 3:16 does not support sola scriptura. It merely says that the Old Testament is profitable for building up the Christian, in context, the elder of the community (since the typical Christian did not have their own set of Scriptures…)

Regards

 

[inkaneer]

Before defining what the principle of Sola Scriptura is, we need to first identify what it is not so that we are all on the same page. James White who has debated Catholics on this topic gives the following:

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge, religious or otherwise.

It is not a denial of any Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.

It does not deny that God’s Word has been spoken as well as written.

It does not imply rejection of every kind or form of ‘tradition.’

It does not deny the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding and teaching the Church

The error that the RCC makes is their assumption that if the Scripture is not totally complete and exhaustive, then Scripture alone is inadequate as the rule of faith. Sola Scriptura proponents believe God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures, which alone is God-Breathed and authored by the Holy Spirit is indeed sufficient.

Totally incorrect. Sola scriptura is Latin and we Catholics know Latin. Sola scriptura is the rejection of all authority outside of scripture. SCRIPTURE ALONE is authoritative. That is sola scriptura. Unfortunately for protestants this claim is not supported by scripture. Nowhere does scripture say this. Instead scripture claims the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth.” Now if that isn’t that a contradiction to sola scriptura then what is? Rather if sola scriptura was a true doctrine then scripture would say that scripture not the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

OK I’ll make this simple. Prove the Hypostatic Union using sripture alone. You have the floor all to yourself. Give it your best shot.

MonFrere

As God
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).
He knows all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 10:28)

**All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)
As Man
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)

Col 2:9 is one of the more definite passages, which display the two natures.
*** For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form***, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him ***through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ***

Also, Hebrews 1 speaks of His deity, but Hebrews 2 speaks of His humanity
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, ***He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, ***15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.
The highlighted above shows both natures, humanity and deity.

John 10:33 is a clear as one can get.

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

From there Jesus makes it clear that He is both. Like I said; it has always been there; just not put into words we could clearly distinguish, just like Sola Scriptura. Always true, but implicit.

The Trinity is no different "baptise them in the “Name”, which is singular of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Make them in “our” image is another good one. It is not invented, that which is already implicit or explict.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Totally incorrect. Sola scriptura is Latin and we Catholics know Latin. Sola scriptura is the rejection of all authority outside of scripture. SCRIPTURE ALONE is authoritative. That is sola scriptura. Unfortunately for protestants this claim is not supported by scripture. Nowhere does scripture say this. Instead scripture claims the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth.” Now if that isn’t that a contradiction to sola scriptura then what is? Rather if sola scriptura was a true doctrine then scripture would say that scripture not the church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth”.

You clain to know what Sola Scriptura is, but you defined what it is not. It is the fact that the Words of God written in the Bible are 100% sufficient for the practise of the Christian faith and contain all the moral law necessary to live that Christian life.

It is implicit throughout Scripture, take the phrase “it is written”, this is how the apostles and Jesus referred to God’s revelation to make many of their points. You won’t find a single passages quoting anything outside of Scripture as a source of Christian practice.

I like the quote you gave, which is the church id the “pillar and support” of the truth, which is to say that the church is responsible for upholding, proclaiming and protecting the Word of God - Sola Scriptura. Also, Jesus was definitely a Sola Scriptura, when He was tempted in the wilderness, how did He fight all temptation; it was summed up in this phars “man shall not liveth by bread alone, but by every word that procedeth from the mouth of God” - where is every word from the mouth of God? Sola Scriptura.

What about Psalm 19, try reading it; it is Sola Scitpura as well and very explicit as well.
The 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.**

What I cannot understand is how you can reject which is very implicit, if not explicit - sola scriptura; yet accept such things a “immaculate conception”, which is not even slightly implicit in God’s Word, but to each their own beliefs.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

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.

LOL - you are silly. go back and count how many time “the Word of God” is used. The Bible is the word of God, the living word at that.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

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.

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.

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.

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

Please demonstrate that which we have outside of the Bible that is the very voice of God; aside from creation.