Bible being the Sole Authority??

[JonNC]

=rfournier103;10398829]Agreed.

I think it can also be stated that the communions that practice Sola Scriptura also failed to maintain unity.

Without a doubt. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, the Presbolutheran Congragation of Springfield (for you Simpsons fans out there), Anabaptists, United Church of Christ, Pentacostals, Seventh-Day Adventists all claim Sola Scriptura. All have different takes on it. If all are reading from the same book, why so many divisions? (Rhetorical question. No one ever answers this.) Why did these divisions happen in the first place? I think it’s a sad state of affairs. I’ll bet all these denominations couldn’t even agree what to get on a pizza. This is NOT what Christ wanted. Maybe that’s the ONLY thing we’ll all ever agree on…

Indeed, true, it is not what Christ wanted, or wants.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

Without a doubt. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Indeed, true, it is not what Christ wanted, or wants.

Jon

Jon,

I hate to be a stickler, but when you note the division within the ranks of Sola Scriptura and then apply…

Paul is making a point with the Judaizers believing that they should follow the law/mosaic to be Christian and impose the ceremonial law on Christians…he starts in Romans 3 with this…

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

and while those that were Jewish/Christians believing that in the ceremonial law they were without sin and gentiles were with sin…he points out that even though they believe and think so it is not so…

So to point out that they sin is to force them to realize that they too were with sin as they wrongly believed Jews were without sin because of the law and the Gentiles without the law were under the power of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

To apply this to the group Sola Scriptura would then imply that those who adhere to Sola Scriptura as they judge others they are wrong.

 

[benjohnson]

PRmerger:

(preferably during Martin Luther’s time) that states that SS is not a doctrine but rather a “hermeneutic principle”?

Perhaps this, given that ‘principle’ is Latin for '‘rule’:

“For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel. (Smalkald articles 2:15)”

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps this, given that ‘principle’ is Latin for '‘rule’:

“For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel. (Smalkald articles 2:15)”

Thanks, Ben.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is all I need.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Is scripture is inspired by God, why do I need a man to tell me something different or add to something there?

And how do you know Second timothy is scripture?

 

[Nicea325]

jrtrent:

I wonder how far apart Protestants and Catholics are in this regard. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical lectures had written:

Quote:
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal [taken by some to mean either the firm belief of Christian doctrine or the Creed itself], which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Lecture 4, section 17)

I don’t think most Protestants are saying any more than Cyril did with respect to the authority of the scriptures in their churches.

If you are claiming St. Cyril believed in the Bible-Only and the Scriptures had the sole authority you are gravely mistaken. Many Protestants are notorious for taking the church fathers words way out-of-context in order to prove a bogus beliefs known as the Bible-only.

 

[Nicea325]

I understand the OT to be the beginning of time until the arrival of John the Baptist, the last OT prophet. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the Apocrypha. All the books in my Bible are ones that you agree are in the canon, so let’s stay in that realm.

I was not so much concerned with the authority the OT holds; rather I’m interested in the how the RCC does or does not define what it means. My question was based on how logical it is for an entity in the NT era (the Magisterium) to define what was written before it existed. I can see how it’s logical for you to believe that about what came after it, but not before.

Guanophore made a very accurate statement in his reply. He said “The OT by itself, before any of the NT was ever written, was able to instruct the faithful unto salvation through faith in Christ.” He hit on the point I was leading up to. People in the OT were able to discern what the OT Scriptures were saying without the Magisterium to define it. Those OT Scriptures were able to teach the gospel to those people and lead them to salvation. And no Magisterium in sight. The gospel was proclaimed in the OT and there was no need for a Magisterium to help them understand it.

The bolded words are totally false. Who read the OT scriptures to the faithful? The common folk? Who kept and safeguarded the OT Scriptures? The OT Scriptures were not printed and handed-out to the faithful for themselves to discern what they meant. You are applying a novelty called the Bible-Only to the Jewish religion. Who owned their own Jewish OT Bible? How many books did the OT have at the time of Christ? Which books did it contain? Under whose authority was a fixed canon set during Christ life time?

Finally, I am still curious to know which Bible Abraham read to discern what God was saying?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps this, given that ‘principle’ is Latin for '‘rule’:

“For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel. (Smalkald articles 2:15)”

I appreciate this quote, ben. Is it from Martin Luther?

However, it does not say that SS is not a doctrine but rather a hermeneutic principle. It simply repeats that which we all understand SS to be: the Bible is the only source of divine revelation.

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t state this.

And whether it’s a “hermeneutic principle” or a “rule of faith”, it is one that is unsupported by the Scriptures.

 

[marywarfield]

IgnatianPhilo is Orthodox. Would this apply to Orthodoxy as well? They reject, through Tradition and scripture, the claims the papacy makes for itself regarding supremacy over the universal Church on Earth.

Jon

Quite likely I could extend it that far, yes. For the basis of my argument is if one cannot believe in the man one will not believe in the Christ either.

By rejecting the papacy, one is stating one does not believe in the man as the representation of Christ, no? And therefore, there is no scriptural basis in believing in the Christ either under those circumstances.

 

[joe370]

IgnatianPhilo is Orthodox. Would this apply to Orthodoxy as well? They reject, through Tradition and scripture, the claims the papacy makes for itself regarding supremacy over the universal Church on Earth.

Jon

Jon, those claims the papacy makes for itself, regarding supremacy over the universal Church on earth, applies only to those folks belonging to the one Catholic Church on earth i.e. universal jurisdiction does not apply to anyone outside the Catholic Church, nor should it - agreed?

 

[JonNC]

I appreciate this quote, ben. Is it from Martin Luther?

However, it does not say that SS is not a doctrine but rather a hermeneutic principle. It simply repeats that which we all understand SS to be: the Bible is the only source of divine revelation.

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t state this.

And whether it’s a “hermeneutic principle” or a “rule of faith”, it is one that is unsupported by the Scriptures.

Well, PR, its like I said, Lutherans don’t speak of it as doctrine. There are certainly others that do, but we can’t respond for them.
Why would a principle or practice necessarily need to come directly from the Bible? The Mass, for example, is apparent from the early Church, but not explicit in scripture.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, those claims the papacy makes for itself, regarding supremacy over the universal Church on earth, applies only to those folks belonging to the one Catholic Church on earth i.e. universal jurisdiction does not apply to anyone outside the Catholic Church, nor should it - agreed?

I don’t think that’s the claim, Joe. I am part of the universal Church on Earth, the Church Militant, the Church Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yet the CC claims I am of an “ecclesial community”.
If the papacy’s claim of primacy were in keeping to that given it in the early Church, I would be thrilled to submit to it.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Well, PR, its like I said, Lutherans don’t speak of it as doctrine. There are certainly others that do, but we can’t respond for them.
Why would a principle or practice necessarily need to come directly from the Bible? The Mass, for example, is apparent from the early Church, but not explicit in scripture.

Jon

Because if you give the Bible the sole authority like most Protestants, it has to come from the bible in order to be fact and of God. That is why you do not see a Baptist preacher giving Mass.

I don’t think that’s the claim, Joe. I am part of the universal Church on Earth, the Church Militant, the Church Catholic, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yet the CC claims I am of an “ecclesial community”.
If the papacy’s claim of primacy were in keeping to that given it in the early Church, I would be thrilled to submit to it.

Jon

If I am right, which there is a good chance I am wrong , your belief in “church” is much different than what a Catholic believes. You believe the “church” is not a Church established by Christ that is known as the RCC, but rather the “church” is the people or Christians. Right?

 

[JonNC]

If I am right, which there is a good chance I am wrong , your belief in “church” is much different than what a Catholic believes. You believe the “church” is not a Church established by Christ that is known as the RCC, but rather the “church” is the people or Christians. Right?

The confessions define Church as the congregation of saints (believers), where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Therefore, it is both, though we would dispute the claim that the CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome is exclusively the visible Church. Certainly, the CC is part of that visible Church, as are her members.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

The confessions define Church as the congregation of saints (believers), where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. Therefore, it is both, though we would dispute the claim that the CC in communion with the Bishop of Rome is exclusively the visible Church. Certainly, the CC is part of that visible Church, as are her members.

Jon

Maybe you can dispute the claim but I respectfully believe it to be so

 

[PRmerger]

Well, PR, its like I said, Lutherans don’t speak of it as doctrine. There are certainly others that do, but we can’t respond for them.

Fair enough, friend. Fair enough.

 

[Miriam1947]

Well, PR, its like I said, Lutherans don’t speak of it as doctrine. There are certainly others that do, but we can’t respond for them.
Why would a principle or practice necessarily need to come directly from the Bible? The Mass, for example, is apparent from the early Church, but not explicit in scripture.

Jon

The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn.

Uses The Book of Revelation to describe the Biblical basis for the Mass.

 

[benjohnson]

It was not given to Protestants, they stole it…

If I understand correctly, I would say we received the bible from God though his holy, catholic, and apostolic church of which we are part of and confess.

That we are not in communion with others that also proclaim this is of course distressing, but even though the Law condemns us, we are given our true comfort in the Gospel of the Lord.

 

[CopticChristian]

If I understand correctly, I would say we received the bible from God though his holy, catholic, and apostolic church of which we are part of and confess.

That we are not in communion with others that also proclaim this is of course distressing, but even though the Law condemns us, we are given our true comfort in the Gospel of the Lord.

Ben,

Explain to me how in your mind, as you express, you can say…

We received the Bible from God through his Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

Explain to me the mechanics of that reception…who gave it to you so that you could receive it?

 

[solarguy17]

You know…the Bible says…in…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

To know the truth…it says listen to an Apostle…not read a book or the Bible.

So do you still believe the Bible is all you need?

Correct, listen to the Apostles, the Apostles have all passed away leaving the Bible as their message to us.

And yes, I do because of what it says in this verse.