Bible Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael68
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael68 said:
How did the first Christians get along without a bible?
Click to expand...
They were still close to the source. I would suggest it became apparent the Pure Word needed to be recorded as to prevent mankind from distorting it. A few Hundred Years later it became apparent even the recorded word needed to be Clarified to make clear to all the path forward.

The further we get away from the Sun the less the heat, Gods bounty is the Sun rises every day and goes through seasons. These being great Spiritual Lessons.

Regards Tony
 
Michael68 said:
How did the first Christians get along without a bible?
Click to expand...
Do you believe the OT and Deuterocanonical books were unavailable to the early Christians, or the letters of Paul were not, or the Gospels were not available until 325?
There were not in a bound publication, but they were available and shared, often orally.

But that is irrelevant to the principle of sola scriptura anyway. SS is a post-apostolic era principle, which was not necessary on the early Church.

Jon
 
Michael68 said:
I agree. Jesus Christ founded a Church not a book
Click to expand...
It’s important not to go in the other extreme direction and appear to belittle God’s Word.
True, Jesus did not pass out Bibles, but the CC put together the Bible as we know it and has always showed reverence for Sacred Scriptures. We mustn’t make it and either/or situation, because it’s not.
 
JustaServant said:
It’s important not to go in the other extreme direction and appear to belittle God’s Word.
True, Jesus did not pass out Bibles, but the CC put together the Bible as we know it and has always showed reverence for Sacred Scriptures. We mustn’t make it and either/or situation, because it’s not.
Click to expand...
By the same token, sometimes non-Catholics go out of their way to deny the necessity of the Church and the role it plays, the teaching role it is provided in scripture.
I agree that we must not make it an either/or situation.

Jon
 
Again I ask, who’s definition of Sola Scriptura are we using? A Confessional Lutheran’s who would, traditionally, hold to some sort of Tradition and Church authority? A Fundamentalist Baptist who would say it is taking teaching from the plain text of Scripture only: no interpretation (which is impossible, but they still say it) no traditions (which is, in and of itself a tradition) no pastors, no priests, no outside sources.

Or is it one of the many other definitions in between? Until Sola Scriptura is universally - pun intended - defined we can’t begin to have a discussion on what verses may or may not support it.
 
PoorKnight said:
Again I ask, who’s definition of Sola Scriptura are we using? A Confessional Lutheran’s who would, traditionally, hold to some sort of Tradition and Church authority? A Fundamentalist Baptist who would say it is taking teaching from the plain text of Scripture only: no interpretation (which is impossible, but they still say it) no traditions (which is, in and of itself a tradition) no pastors, no priests, no outside sources.

Or is it one of the many other definitions in between? Until Sola Scriptura is universally - pun intended - defined we can’t begin to have a discussion on what verses may or may not support it.
Click to expand...
Then choose the one you want to talk about. Or, ask the OP which one he wants to talk about. Which ever is chosen, it can be discussed.
But the very idea that a particular verse, or verses, are required places limits on the discussion, limited to those who use solo scriptura, since they are the ones who probably would require explicit verses.

Jon
 
PoorKnight said:
Again I ask, who’s definition of Sola Scriptura are we using? A Confessional Lutheran’s who would, traditionally, hold to some sort of Tradition and Church authority? A Fundamentalist Baptist who would say it is taking teaching from the plain text of Scripture only: no interpretation (which is impossible, but they still say it) no traditions (which is, in and of itself a tradition) no pastors, no priests, no outside sources.

Or is it one of the many other definitions in between? Until Sola Scriptura is universally - pun intended - defined we can’t begin to have a discussion on what verses may or may not support it.
Click to expand...
What I’m asking for is any scripture that supports bible alone as authority as said by Protestants who believe there are no traditions, no works, and just the bible.
 
Michael68 said:
What I’m asking for is any scripture that supports bible alone as authority as said by Protestants who believe there are no traditions, no works, and just the bible.
Click to expand...
There are Christians who believe in Sola Scriptura that also believe in traditions and works.

It is not so much “bible alone” as it is “bible finally”. There may be other authorities, even the local pastor, but all are to be held accountable to the Scriptures.
 
Michael68 said:
What I’m asking for is any scripture that supports bible alone as authority as said by Protestants who believe there are no traditions, no works, and just the bible.
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading along and I’m starting to feel your pain!

Gunaophore answered your question in his post no. 106. It’s not going to get better than that.

There’s nothing in the written word that states that the bible alone should be followed. It says how we’re to use the bible for teaching, correcting, etc. In fact, there’s one verse that says the original christians are to pass on the written AND the oral word.

So you’re asking for something no one will be able to supply. You can’t prove a negative.

However, as Guanophore states, protestants do have rules and do have authority, they do have tradition. THEIR church hierarchy IS their authority. Do you think people going to an Assembly of God church (example) go around declaring their own private beliefs?? No. They have someone in authority, they have authoritative interpretation of scripture. It just isn’t the magisterium!

Now someone, just as we do, might read a particular verse and get some kind of private revelation from God. A spiritual revelation. This is wonderful and is God speaking to us, but it cannot be taught as truth. We, as catholics, also must adhere to the Word.

And, just as we Catholics, as can be seen from these threads, some have ever so slightly varying views on certain topics. BUT not on the topic that Jesus is God, that He came to save us from sin and death, that He died and was resurrected.

There is, BTW, also Solo Scriptura, SOLO. This is a kind of weird concept where one believes NO church is necessary. So they believe even MORE in bible only! I’m wondering where they get their authority from. From the bible. But, yeah, this could be a bit dangerous depending on the mental stability of the person. I do not believe the concept of SolA Scriptura is dangerous because there’s a church involved. There just is no Pope, as would be Francis. But, if you think of it, they kind of have a Pope too! He’s just not called The Pope.

Fran
 
JonNC said:
  • Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household
Wow!!

Jon
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I should be writing to you - I get confused because I have little time and can’t go back - anybody could answer.

You’re replying to.

Justification by faith, for example, ought to be preached by the whole Church — and with more vigour than ever. Not in opposition to good works – the issue is already settled – but rather in opposition to the claim of people today that they can save themselves thanks to their science, technology or their man – made spirituality, without the need for a redeemer coming from outside humanity. Self-justification! I am convinced that if they were alive today this is the way Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer would preach justification through faith!
  • Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household
I agree. But isn’t this what Luther DID preach??
He never said man could save himself. In fact, I’d say he was saying the opposite which is what got him ex.communicated from the church.

Fran
 
frangiuliano115 said:
I’m not sure I should be writing to you - I get confused because I have little time and can’t go back - anybody could answer.

You’re replying to.

Justification by faith, for example, ought to be preached by the whole Church — and with more vigour than ever. Not in opposition to good works – the issue is already settled – but rather in opposition to the claim of people today that they can save themselves thanks to their science, technology or their man – made spirituality, without the need for a redeemer coming from outside humanity. Self-justification! I am convinced that if they were alive today this is the way Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer would preach justification through faith!
  • Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household
I agree. But isn’t this what Luther DID preach??
He never said man could save himself. In fact, I’d say he was saying the opposite which is what got him ex.communicated from the church.

Fran
Click to expand...
Hi Fran,
Two things
  1. one must remember that Luther wrote in a different time. Some of the teachings he was opposing, I’m thinking Occamism here, is not acceptable today, as far as I know. So, I think the Father makos good observation.
  2. my “wow” has to do with the individual this comes from, his position within the Catholic Church.
    Jon
 
JonNC said:
Then choose the one you want to talk about. Or, ask the OP which one he wants to talk about. Which ever is chosen, it can be discussed.
But the very idea that a particular verse, or verses, are required places limits on the discussion, limited to those who use solo scriptura, since they are the ones who probably would require explicit verses.

Jon
Click to expand...
But doesn’t the very notion of having the Individual themselves pick which definition of Sola (or Solo - it matters little) Scriptura strike you as strange?

To me, it shows the falsehood of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura. The Individual picks how they’re going to approach the Bible and understand it. This very notion places the Individual’s authority above or before that of Scripture.

The ideas in your answer are just about the same as what I get from other non-Catholic Christians I talk to. Is the definition of “Sola Scriptura” a non-essential then?

God Bless :signofcross:
PoorKnight for Christ and His Church
 
JonNC said:
Then choose the one you want to talk about. Or, ask the OP which one he wants to talk about. Which ever is chosen, it can be discussed.
But the very idea that a particular verse, or verses, are required places limits on the discussion, limited to those who use solo scriptura, since they are the ones who probably would require explicit verses.

Jon
Click to expand...
That’s my point. There are no scriptures to support sola scriptura
 
Michael68 said:
That’s my point. There are no scriptures to support sola scriptura
Click to expand...
There are plenty of Scriptures that can be used to support the practice, and writings from the Fathers as well.

There are no scriptures commanding or describing the practice, which was invented at the time of the Reformation.
 
PoorKnight said:
But doesn’t the very notion of having the Individual themselves pick which definition of Sola (or Solo - it matters little) Scriptura strike you as strange?

To me, it shows the falsehood of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura. The Individual picks how they’re going to approach the Bible and understand it. This very notion places the Individual’s authority above or before that of Scripture.

The ideas in your answer are just about the same as what I get from other non-Catholic Christians I talk to. Is the definition of “Sola Scriptura” a non-essential then?

God Bless :signofcross:
PoorKnight for Christ and His Church
Click to expand...
Your entire post is wrong and I can’t really repeat what I’ve already said.

First of all SOLO AND SOLA are very different - guess you can’t understand the difference.

Second SOLA scriptura is not an individual understanding of scripture.

You really should try to understand both.

Fran
 
guanophore said:
There are no scriptures commanding or describing the practice, which was invented at the time of the Reformation.
Click to expand...
Do you exclusively mean sola scriptura or ALL practices that came about by the reformation?
 
Holy Scripture never mentions itself as the sole authority for doctrine, however, it does say that it is an authority; same with tradition. It also exhorts us to not add to what has been given to us, thus the development of doctrine is why I am not Catholic.

As an Anglican, I do not subscribe to sola scriptura in the way that a reformed Calvinist would; I see a definite need for tradition, as well. Notwithstanding, tradition can get slippery, as it tends to develop over time in the hands of men; this is why scripture must be held with higher regard. Further, many have different interpretations on what exactly constitutes as tradition.
 
Aslan10 said:
Holy Scripture never mentions itself as the sole authority for doctrine, however, it does say that it is an authority; same with tradition. It also exhorts us to not add to what has been given to us, thus the development of doctrine is why I am not Catholic.

As an Anglican, I do not subscribe to sola scriptura in the way that a reformed Calvinist would; I see a definite need for tradition, as well. Notwithstanding, tradition can get slippery, as it tends to develop over time in the hands of men; this is why scripture must be held with higher regard. Further, many have different interpretations on what exactly constitutes as tradition.
Click to expand...
One must consider some factors here.
  1. The exhortation not to add “to the words of this book” refer to the Apocalypse. It was not bound together with the rest of the NT books until 382, so it is a stretch to assume that the words apply to the canon as a whole. If that were true, then the Church would not have been able to “add” the other 26 NT books!
  2. Sacred Tradition is part of the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith that was completed at the death of the last Apostle. We cannot add to this, any more than we can add to the NT.
  3. What “develops” is our understanding and application of the doctrine, ,rather than the doctrines themselves.
  4. Human traditions (customs) are part of human culture, and do change over time.They can also become “slippery”. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top