Burden of proof in Sola Scriptura

[Lazerlike42]

Leon Miguel:

That is a very neat answer

Actually, its more than that. It’s one of most important answers, because it shows that if this verse really proves what the Protestants want to say it does, it proves far, far too much. If this verse really proves Sola Scriptura, then it actually proves Sola Old Testamate.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Redbandito:

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is one of James White’s tactics. It is a red herring. “If I get into trouble with sola scriptura, I’ll bring up Mary, or the that Catholics believe you can work your way to Heaven”. These accusations have nothing to do with this subject. Debate sola scriptura, and then we can debate Mary. But you are just lobbing accusations like hand grenades at the Church with this form of argumentation so that we can never really pin your argument down. It is at best a poor tactic for seeking truth, and at worst it is entirely dishonest.

You are correct in that I was not addressing the issue at hand but reponding to this:

jim1130:

So, in the Transfiguration, when Elijah and Moses met with Jesus, do you think that it was actually a summit for the three of them to discuss how to write the Bible? Perhaps Jesus said to them “You two take the OT and I will take the NT”? Maybe they were on a deadline because they realized all those poor people who lived without a Bible were doomed? I mean, seriously, SOMEWHERE in the Bible is the word “Bible” and SOMEWHERE in the Bible it outlines ALL the books to include.

OSAS was introduced because it went against Rome. It is like an urban myth that suddenly becomes reality.

Perhaps this question gets this conversation back on track. How did Jerome or Origen or other ECF come to an understanding of Scripture before the Church “defined” the canon? If the writings of the apostles or their followers don’t recommend themselves to Believers how did they arrive at their decisions?

Blessings to you,
Richard

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

Perhaps this question gets this conversation back on track. How did Jerome or Origen or other ECF come to an understanding of Scripture before the Church “defined” the canon? If the writings of the apostles or their followers don’t recommend themselves to Believers how did they arrive at their decisions?

Blessings to you,
Richard

I think that is a fair, honest and open approach to coming to the bottom of this question.

 

[Ignatius]

Richard_Hurtz:

How did Jerome or Origen or other ECF come to an understanding of Scripture before the Church “defined” the canon?

Sacred Tradition. The same Sacred Tradition, by the way, by which the Church determined, declared and decreed which are the inspired writings of the New Testament.

 

[Philthy]

svoboda:

I think the burden of proof is with Catholic teaching.

In the realm of Christianity, yes - along with the Orthodox - who else can bear witness to the Gospel? The gnostics? The Mormons? There was no one else around, and in that sense the burden of proof of Christianity lies with the Catholic Church - there is no one else who can even pretend to be a witness. Every one who claims the bible as the rule of faith has tried to put the cart before the horse and simply cant exercise authority except within their own ranks.

svoboda:

The earliest scriptures date back to 50AD (Paul’s letters), the gospels were completed by 100AD.

This is extrabiblical and therefore fallible.

svoboda:

These are the very earliest records of Christianity. Paul’s letters are closest to what the first Christians believed.

Not only is this specualtion, but quite to the contrary, much of what Paul wrote is to CORRECT what the “earliest Christians” believed.

svoboda:

I don’t like the division between scripture/oral tradition. Scripture is the the oral tradition of the first centurly of Chrisitanity WRITTEN DOWN.

Correct. Scripture is Tradition - Catholics have been saying that since the beginning.

svoboda:

Is it possible that the early Christians believed other things but chose not to write them down? Sure. But since they didn’t write them down we simply have no way of knowing what else they believed, and whether they left anything important out of their writings.

You are delirious - you need to read the Didache and stop dwelling in the theoretical. Early Church history is there for you to see: unadulterated witness of the first generation after the Apostles. No it is not Scripture, but it is reality. Fortunately most of this material is available on line for free. Unfortunately you will have to change some of your current theological moorings…

svoboda:

I’ve looked around to the dating of Church fathers, and they seem to start in the end of the SECOND century AD and onward.

Seem to start ? Exactly how much looking have you done and in what places? Get to work!

svoboda:

If one holds the views that the early Christianity is the “truest” Christianity, then the scriptures are far more valuable than the writings of early Church fathers, and even more valuable than the writings of later theologians such as Aquinas.

Of course they are more valuable in the sense that they are Scripture and the ECFs are not. However, in putting together a complete picture of what the early Church was like the ECFs are invaluable. There is always the problem of Scripture being ambiguous on many issues and the “bible only” generations have not arrived at any significant concensus as to what the bible tells us about early Christian beliefs. This is fact, not theory.

svoboda:

But as far as a testament to what the earliest Christians believed, Paul’s letters take priority. And in my opinion, the closest to the time of Christ, the more likely the teaching is to convey what Christ actually said.

No argument there. The question is not only what Christ said, but what he meant by what he said! “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” is a good example - what did he mean? Don’t you think it would be profitable to know what Johns disciple Ignatious(who was martyred for his faith) thought it meant? “Unless you are born of water and the holy Spirit…” is another statement from our Lord that has left many wondering. The ECFs complete the picture on such issues. I sense that you just don’t want to find out what they had to say - I’d probably be the same way.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Richard_Hurtz:

How did Jerome or Origen or other ECF come to an understanding of Scripture before the Church “defined” the canon?

Ignatius:

Sacred Tradition. The same Sacred Tradition, by the way, by which the Church determined, declared and decreed which are the inspired writings of the New Testament.

I see.
If the ECF had Sacred Tradition as their guide to know what constituted Scripture, how is it that many / most of them identified a canon of Scripture that differs from the one ‘defined’ at Trent?

Blessings,
Richard

 

[Redbandito]

Richard_Hurtz:

I see.
If the ECF had Sacred Tradition as their guide to know what constituted Scripture, how is it that many / most of them identified a canon of Scripture that differs from the one ‘defined’ at Trent?

Blessings,
Richard

“Most” of them didn’t. Even the ones that did debate this (i.e.Jerome) submitted to the authority of the Church once they affirmed the Canon (While they did not define the canon infallibly until Trent, the Church had affirmed and re-affirmed the canon by the 4th century).

Further, Sacred Tradition does not = the Church Fathers. Rather, the Church Fathers are witness to sacred Tradition. A lot of people make that mistake. There are respected theologians out there like Tertullian that we lean strongly on for understanding. And yet, Tertullian himself was ex-communicated. How can this be? Simply because Tertullian is not sacred Tradition. Again, Tertullian, like other Church Fathers is witness to Tradition.

And finally, the most interesting thing about your appeal to the ECF’s in regards to the canon is that NONE of them held to what Protestants hold to today as far as I have seen. Some of them might have had extra books like “Shepherd of Hermas”, etc., or taken a couple of books out, but none of them excluded all the deuterocanonicals and used the Protestant canon. Heck, Luther himself didn’t hold to the Protestant canon since he did not hold James, Hebrews, or Revelation as canonical.

 

[javelin]

SemperJase:

My reply is that the previous verse says “profitable” not “sufficient.”

A weight lifting program is profitable for physical fitness. It is not sufficient for perfect fitness including cardiovascular health though.

You have a point, we must consider the verses in context. That means we need to look at verse 17 as you suggested as well as verses 14 and 15. Those answer a significant question. What did Paul mean by scripture? His definition of scripture didn’t include the four gospels which hadn’t been written yet or even his own letters, especially 2 Timothy itself.

Basically, he was referring to OT scriptures. We see this in verse 15 where Paul refers to the sacred writings that Timothy had known since childhood. The sacred writings that were around when Timothy was a child were Old Testament writings.

Since those scriptures didn’t contain the gospel, they could not have been sufficient for perfecting us. But, as Paul said, they were still profitable.

So 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not about sola scriptura. It was about not throwing away the Old Testament writings that we could still learn from.

Lazerlike42:

Watch this:

All wine, made by the French, is profitable to drink, to enjoy, to cook, and to serve at parties, That the kitchen of a chef may be perfect, furnished to every good meal.

Does this mean that wine is all that is necessary to have in a cook’s kitchen? Of course not. It means perfection in the sense that it finishes the Job, not that it starts the job.

Scripture is the same. With it Sacred Tradition, the Church can get so far long the path to perfection, but only with Scripture can it make it all the way. Similarly, with Scripture, the Church can get so far along the path, but can only go all the way with Sacred Tradition.

…

Actually, its more than that. It’s one of most important answers, because it shows that if this verse really proves what the Protestants want to say it does, it proves far, far too much. If this verse really proves Sola Scriptura, then it actually proves Sola Old Testamate.

Very nice, and percisely what I was getting at, SemperJase and Lazerlike42 – the passages must be taken in context and they must be reasoned through completely before throwing them out as apologetical “proofs”. Unless someone is aware of where the protestant interpretation breaks down, they could be thrown by something so simple. Thus I wanted to be sure the person who posted this passage initially didn’t hang his whole argument only on verse 16, but looked at it more closely in context and prepared for possible objections to his reasoning.

Peace to you!
javelin

 

[geno75]

My Burden of proof-

Fortunately, we dont have to ask the papal chair what Genesis 3:1-7 is all about. This part of scripture is what I keep in the forefront of my mind every day I live the crucified life of Jesus Christ.

In short, the serpent deceives the woman by playing the “what if?” game with her. The serpent did this because she is created from man and most importantly did not get the living Word of God(written or verbally) directly from God. Imagine if the serpent tried that with the man, the serpent would get a big 'ol “DUH! of course we can’t eat from that tree!” from him. Anyways, the serpent gets the woman to go against God’s Word(deceive), AND is also able to get her to make the man to go against Gods Word(disobey) by eating of the forbidden fruit.

Little whispers of, “Did God really mean this?” has been put in all of our ears since that event.

Satans work against man can range from all kinds of evil, but from this account in scripture when man fell because of the serpent, his hell seems to work best when it’s ever so subtle.

Now came Jesus Christ, the son of God and his teachings, his death, his rising from the dead and ascension into Heaven where he sits at the right hand of God. We had those who received the first hand good news of Jesus directly, especially the 12 Apostles, one of them(Judas) served both masters, and as we all know, we cannot serve God and Satan.

So now Jesus is in Heaven and the Apostles began to spread the good news of Jesus orally and those preached and teached. Then those who heard checked OT scriptures to see if these teachings fell in line with what was written in the OT books. They did. Four written Gospels of Jesus Christ were written, which all of them complemented one another and went in line with what was being preached and teached about Jesus. The Word of God remained true in writings. Acts was written by the same author who penned the Gospel According to Luke, so this piece of writing is credible. All the Letters that eventually went along with the NT jived so well with the previously 5 mentioned NT books.

Now we can look back at what Satan did in the Garden what was WRITTEN in Genesis 3:1-7. Satan knows he lost, by man living the crucified life of Christ man can now prepare to leave this world to enter heaven because we are made perfect in Christ(if he chooses to). Man now belongs to Christs Church, the bride, that now waits for the bridegroom, Jesus Christ.

We see the fast and furious presecution of the church in Acts. But as we all know, Satan works best when his work is subtle. Satan’s only logical move is swiftly go after those who believed and received the teachings of Jesus Christ first hand by trying to either get it in man’s heart to kill them or get them to disobey. How could they disobey? By deceiving those that did not recieve the word firsthand by God to mingle with the true Word of God.

God is not the Author of confusion, he left the church these books of his true and living Word. Yes, these writings were SEVERELY limited, Satan had that on his side. The true oral teachings of Jesus that his church spread was now subject to this world of sin and death. Satan knows that if man joins Christ’s Church and adheres 100% to his true Word, Satan himself cannot prevail against the Church. JESUS gave us ALL the keys of his kingdom. So for many of years, these scrolls that held the true Word of God were limited, and knowing man’s nature, Im sure these were hoarded and kept from the laypeople. Now with the death of the Apostles and all those that stood firm with Jesus’ teachings in faith, Satans tyranny was in full swing, his word can now mingle with Gods word through mans mouth. He knows he cannot prevail against the church, so he will try decieve us from the one true church.

And in the catholics church’s finest hour(if their claim is correct), they canonized these books that are in the NT, showing once again who is in charge and not the author of confusion-GOD our creator!

 

[geno75]

(continued)

There is not one solid teaching by anyone in the NT or hint at a sacrifice of a mass. But yet one in the CC cannot eat 1 hour before receiving the sacrament. While in the gospels of Jesus the CC canonized showed that Jesus broke bread and gave wine right after they ate! Come on, Jesus fulfilled the passover supper(last supper) and ordained to his church the Lord’s Supper where we gather together to feast and give thanks and break bread and offer wine. He already blessed the bread and wine we drink! We do this to proclaim his death for our sins! The breaking of his body and his blood poured out for our forgiveness of sins. Satan cringes when we proclaim the blood of Christ! But in the CC world, they limit how often they can receive that sacrament they claim is real. Paul wrote in 1Cor 11:17-34 that he knows of the problems that church was having with the Lord’s Supper. There were those getting stuffed with food while others were hungary and those who where getting drunk. He clearly tells them “Dont you have homes to do this in?” But yet they still proclaimed our Lord’s death in this way when it came time for the bread and wine. This is the unworthy manner that results in the sinning against the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Its right there in front of our noses and IT DOES not line up with what the CC teaches!

Jesus puts no limit on how many times we can proclaim his body and blood! NO LIMIT!

Jesus ate with man at the Last Supper/Lord’s Supper, and the Gospels clearly states he looks forward to feasting with us again. Psalm 23, does it not say that the Lord our Shepard is preparing a table before our enemies? Our cup overflows!
So where does the CC come up with the mass of the sacrifice?
So lets look at what happens. We know Jesus fulfills the law, but yet man still tries fulfill it on our own. Many still believe he is present on earth and hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, to be kept in a tabernacle. But Paul clearly states in Acts 17:24-25 that “God does not dwell in temples made by mans hands.” Stephan in Acts7:48-49 right before he saw the glory of God, said “the Most High does not live in houses made by men.” and then quotes OT scripture in Isiah 66:1-2.

Jesus’ teachings are timeless, and the NT books show that. Those books clearly show he conquered death and sin, for us.

But there are those Christians who want it in writing that God wanted us to READ his living Word. Smells like a oxymoron to me. Were is the faith? In man or God in the name of Jesus? When you give testimony to Jesus, who is the cornerstone of his Church, do you not expect those you witnessed to go search what was written of him and his teachings? How can we look at these books and then come away with we do not have any authority to learn from them? Yes that means to interpret ourselves! It might take awhile to truely figure it out, but in the end its Gods true word. I dont know about you, when I read the red letters of Jesus in the NT, those words give of such a lifeforce inside of me. I do not receive that when reading mans dogma and doctrine mingled with his word.

No so called magesterium can deny me of that. Reminds me of the sanhedrin claiming only they can correctly interpret scriptures. But the NT books clearly shows that those who heard looked up OT scripture like its nobody’s business to see if Jesus was true.

Those are the true words of God-FIRST-HAND!!!

Anything that doesnt line up with Jesus teachings, gets thrown out of my mind because it is man’s doomed carnal way of thinking.

What is my authority to interpret scripture?

ALL THAT I YIELD TO, GOD IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Anything other than Gods word is religion, fig leaves of men, the type of fig leaves that come from the tree that Adam and Eve took from and the one Jesus Christ cursed and made it wither away forever in Matthew 21:18-22. Have faith and do not doubt in his words.

When I look back at the actual history of all things that have happened since Jesus Christ, I line it up with his living Word. If it doesnt line up with his teachings, its kaput and dead in my mind.

 

[geno75]

(continued)
You consult with the chair of the vatican, I will consult with God in the name of Jesus himself.

The true church started out with a bunch of no-name, no faced, no known peoples, and when he comes again in glory, it will remain the same. The World hates the true message of Christ and what he did for our sins. In additon, in today’s world his believers will try to stop other believers from doing his work in his name by what those have learned from his Living word in the Holy Bible without the supreme magisterium. Reference that in Mark 9:38-41

I love all Christians and long to be in Heaven with all those who believe in him. All those can go about worshipping them in anyway they want. But I will never succumb to anything that is not taught by Jesus, his word and love is all inclusive of Heaven. Whoever is not against us is for us.

Careful who you call guilty of schism or heresy.

Isn’t it in the council of Trent document that states about other Christians-"…let them be anathema." Great, cursed again. Oh well, there is the blood of Jesus to save us from this world.

God Bless in the name of Jesus Christ

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Lots of words…

Lots of personal interpertations on scripture.

Do you even credit the the Catholic Church for protecting the scripture through the ages for you to interpert however you’d like? Without the Church the scripture would have been lost well before the time of the reformation.

What was the answer to the question…

 

[Mickey]

quote=geno75
I will consult with God in the name of Jesus himself.
[/quote]

I hope it felt good after you released that judgemental diatribe of falsehoods against the Church Jesus Christ Himself founded.

Here’s something for you to ponder.

**Let’s also look at Luke 22:31-32.

**Simon, Simon, satan has asked for you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

The first two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as plural. So in effect, Jesus is saying, “Simon, Simon, satan has asked for “all of you” that he may sift “you all” as wheat.

The second two times the word “you” is used, it is translated from the Greek Koine as singular. “But I have prayed for **you (Peter), **that your faith should not fail; and when you (Peter) have returned to me, strengthen your brethren.

We must all be united with Christ, through Peter, so as not to be sifted by satan.

Be watchful that you are not being sifted.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

We see the fast and furious presecution of the church in Acts.

Here’s something interesting from Acts.

And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,
so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. (Acts 5:14-15)

 

[Eden]

Just out of curiosity, Geno75, why does your profile say “religion is man’s deed” rather than just “atheist”? Is not believing in God becoming so common today that the word “atheist” is not flashy enough?

 

[geno75]

Eden:

Just out of curiosity, Geno75, why does your profile say “religion is man’s deed” rather than just “atheist”? Is not believing in God becoming so common today that the word “atheist” is not flashy enough?

Religion=mans way to serve God

Belief in God in the name of Jesus means to totally die to self and live the crucified life of Christ, totally yielding yourself to it all, including the Holy Spirit. All carnal knowledge will do our faith no favors or justice. If you have a problem with me or any others believing in God in the name of Jesus this way, take it up with management. I am not an Atheist. I forgive you for saying that.

 

[Eden]

geno75:

Religion=mans way to serve God

Belief in God in the name of Jesus means to totally die to self and live the crucified life of Christ, totally yielding yourself to it all, including the Holy Spirit. All carnal knowledge will do our faith no favors or justice. If you have a problem with me or any others believing in God in the name of Jesus this way, take it up with management. I am not an Atheist. I forgive you for saying that.

I prefer not having to do mental gymnastics to figure out what you are representing. If you could share with me what your religion is using a category that would be recognizable, it would help me better understand your point of view; for instance, “Christian” or “Protestant” or “Muslim”. Of course, you are under no obligation to reveal that. But I am sure others who have casually come across your profile are also in a conundrum as to what you believe. Also I don’t understand what you are asking me to do when you suggest I “take up with management” the way you believe in God.

 

[Mickey]

John 21:14-17
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him,** “Tend my sheep.”**
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, **"Feed my sheep. **

 

[Ignatius]

Richard_Hurtz:

I see.
If the ECF had Sacred Tradition as their guide to know what constituted Scripture, how is it that many / most of them identified a canon of Scripture that differs from the one ‘defined’ at Trent?

There have always been dissidents even as there were in the 16th century and there are now.

In terms of when the Canon of the New Testament was defined, it was over a thousand years before Trent. You need to do a little homework my friend. This will help get you started:

Holy Scripture was declared inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

**The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

***It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. ***
*********the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament. *
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

---

**The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
********(canon 36 A.D. 393).

---

**The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

***AD 397: ***
***Council of **Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. ***(canon 47 A.D. 397).

May the peace of Christ be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.