Cough me up ONE scripture passage . .

[jimmy]

SPOKENWORD:

Please dont make me look it up. Any way its when satan tests Jesus after being out in the desert for 40 days. Matt.4 vs.4 and vs7 and vs 10 IT IS WRITTEN SAYS THE LORD

I just thought of a great arguement against sola scriptura and it comes straight from scripture.
In Acts 15 they held the council of Jerusalem to decide whether the gentiles had to be Circumcised when they became Christians. They decided that it was not necisary. They did not decide this based on scripture, they just felt that it was a burden they did not want to place on the gentiles. This was a decision that was extra scripural

 

[MariaG]

Reformed Bob,

I would agree that it proves Paul knew he was being led by the Holy Spirit and we can call it Scripture. However, I think you would agree, that all Scripture needs to be looked at as a whole. The Bible also tells us in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter. No where does it then say, okay, its all been written down now, only do what is written now. How whould you explain holding fast to oral traditions and where are they in your church?
(See no slamming )
God Bless
Maria

 

[Shibboleth]

Corpus Cristi:

Catholics don’t deny that Sacred Scripture has authority. Our faith comes from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Magesterial Teaching. If we didn’t have all three, we wouldn’t be hearing what God truly wants us to hear. When Paul told Timothy this, he meant what he said, and we believe it too, as Catholics, though we don’t use that interpretation protestants use. Instead of acknowledging that ALL scripture is inspired, they interpret it to mean ONLY scripture is inspired by God. That isn’t true at all.

Of course you are not to agree with the interpretation I present… I am not asking you to. If you did agree you would no longer be Catholic and I am not here to convert people. I am simply trying to answer your question you presented. I am not here to attack Catholicism either but to defend my own faith and answer any questions someone might have.

Do Protestants find support for Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures…yes.

 

[Shibboleth]

Corpus Cristi:

Well, we have given proof, after proof, after proof, yet you just throw it aside. I think you needed to really listen to what people had to say in past posts, and now that someone is challenging sola scriptura, now that you have no answer because every one has been refuted, turn the tables on us, but sure, I’ll say it. John 21:25, it says that Jesus, during the forty days he was on the Earth, did and said things that if were written down, the whole world couln’t contain the books that would hold the accounts of what he did. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells the people to “hold fast to the traditions just as I have delivered them to you, either by MOUTH or by LETTER”. These and even more, if you looked, are examples of scripture that say that

ONE-Not all that Christ did was written down
TWO-We should hold fast to what has been given to us by WORD OF MOUTH, or IN WRITING.

Also, look at the times in the Gospels when we hear Christ teaching. Does it say everything that he said in that time he taught. There are times in the gospels when it says that he taught multitudes all day, and they don’t record NEAR enough to be the only things he said. So why don’t you take a look at those?

Yes Jesus did say and do many things that are not written in the Bible. You are misunderstanding Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is not saying that everything is in the Bible, it is saying that everything that is necessary is in the Scriptures. Lutherans do not ignore traditions, in fact we heed and defend them, but we know that a tradition cannot contradict or supersede that which is written in Scripture.

There is an old joke about Lutherans….

“How many Lutherans does it take to change a lightbulb?”
“Change? My great grandfather donated that lightbulb years ago, I don’t see any reason why we need to go changing it.”

Sola Scriptura does not say that other things cannot be right, it is simply saying that the Bible contains all that is necessary.

 

[RolandJS]

Thanks all for welcoming me!

I’m not here to “question” Catholicism or Its adherents,
I’m not here to “defend” Protestantism or non-align en toto,
I’m here as a fellow Christian ambassador at the Table of Friendship and Sharing -

Sharing bits and pieces about my Belief Set, and desiring to know and understand bits and pieces about the Belief Sets of others, whichever Group within Christendom.

Presently, I see four catch-all Groups:
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant
non-align - meaning any entity onpaper not any of the Big 3

As an ambassador of one, I look forward to sharing and answering at the Table of Friendship

After I return from my errands, let’s continue!
Also, then, I will have proper time to re-read and answer comments about what I posted

Please understand - I normally do not “defend” what I have not posted (said), hence, anyone assuming anything may or may not be correct. Also, I do not “question” what others have not posted (said). I try hard not to assume beliefs of others

Roland
AmbassadorMan
a moderator and poster in Hoge’s CO
a poster here, Ray’s DCF & other boards

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Reformed Rob:

So we don’t need to be told by the Catholic Church what books should be included in the New Testament Canon, because Peter tells us!

I won’t slam you but I will ask you this. Are we to consider ONLY Paul’s writings scripture since those are the only ones that Peter specifically mentions are scriptue? Are we to consider any other letters that Paul may have written that are not in the bible scripture since Peter seemed to be referring to all of them?

If you answer “no” to either of these then why wouldn’t we need the Church to tell us which books should be included in the NT??

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[RolandJS]

Since I’m in two Sola Scriptura threads, I’ll simply start a new thread - Friendship Table - and we can continue in just one thread.

See ya all there!

Roland

 

[jmm08]

jimmy:

I just thought of a great arguement against sola scriptura and it comes straight from scripture.
In Acts 15 they held the council of Jerusalem to decide whether the gentiles had to be Circumcised when they became Christians. They decided that it was not necisary. They did not decide this based on scripture, they just felt that it was a burden they did not want to place on the gentiles. This was a decision that was extra scripural

I like your argument. The Sola Scriptura crowd may quickly point out that the Book of Acts is in scripture.

And whoever started this thread would probably say they wanted a scripture passage to support Sola Scriptura. Even though there are scripture verses like yours that seem to say against, they want to see those for Sola Scriptura. Searching for scripture to back up a presupposition is putting the cart before the horse. But a lot of people do it. We are instead supposed to learn from scripture (not use it cafeteria-style to back up our own preconceived ideas).

 

[Shibboleth]

jimmy:

I just thought of a great arguement against sola scriptura and it comes straight from scripture.
In Acts 15 they held the council of Jerusalem to decide whether the gentiles had to be Circumcised when they became Christians. They decided that it was not necisary. They did not decide this based on scripture, they just felt that it was a burden they did not want to place on the gentiles. This was a decision that was extra scripural

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5

Is this what you are referring to?

 

[Gator]

Corpus Cristi:

that supports sola scriptura. I really want to see where you THINK you get your belief on this, though, that’s not where it came from originally, which you may or may not know.

Seems to me your time would be better spent trying to convince people that not all priests molest children. That is a much bigger problem for the catholic church than protestants who have figured out that your traditions are all made up by the church not by god or jesus, but by a bunch of old men who wanted things their way.

 

[Brendan]

Reformed Rob:

So we don’t need to be told by the Catholic Church what books should be included in the New Testament Canon, because Peter tells us!

Now, seeing right through that argument, I’m expecting to get slammed, but please do it gently and with a spirit of ecumenicism:tsktsk:

And JMM08 - your (name removed by moderator)ut on this topic is intriguing!

Bob,

That covers the Letters from Paul, but how about Revelation? Did Peter mention that one? Or the Epistle of James?

There were at least 3 versions of the Gospel of Mark in common use in the Early Christian Church; each with various numbers of Chapters. One version has Christ raising a young man from the dead while in Jericho (10:46). The one in the Canon has Jesus walking into Jericho and pretty much walking right out again. So a whole story seems ‘missing’ from the Canonical Mark. Where in Scripture does it tell us which one is the correct one?

How about other books, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Where in Scripture does it tell us not to include that one in the Canon. Or how about the the Epistle of Barnabas or Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Those letters were considered by many early Christians to be Inspired works done through Holy Men, while the inclusion of Revelation into the Canon met with significant opposition.

Where in Scripture did the Early Church find authoritative guidance to include certain accepted works and exclude others?

Or did the Holy Spirit provide infallible guidance outside of Scripture, in effect Divine Revelation OUTSIDE of Scripture

 

[Curious]

LOOK. Protestants come in here all the time and make outrageous objections, and then, they expect us to apologize to our faith for them. It doesn’t seem fair if we don’t expect the same of them, does it? We may not think that they’re devil worshipers, but it’s pretty clear that some of them think WE are, so we need to defend the faith. I really want to see where they get their “reason” from and how they think that our faith is “unreasonable”. Of all the posts where we Catholics have to apologize to our faith, besides the two apologetics forums, it doesn’t make sense that for EVERY one, we have to cough up a scripture passage to defend our faith, and when we can’t, they just slap a label on the church saying that we’re heretical. But in order to defend the faith, we need to show how we are NOT heretical, which means, we must show how sola scriptura is NOT biblical, therefore, we don’t need to give them scripture every single time they want an answer. What I’m trying to do here with this post, is establish the fact that we don’t need to go to the Bible for EVERY SINGLE THING. That’s all. They try to make our faith look wrong, I’m trying to make our faith look right, because it is right. The fact that their approach to scripture is wrong will come out of this, and I’m not making is blatantly obvious now. If I made an outrageously rude post to how protestant theology is trash, then that would be wrong. I’m asking them, how and why do you see your theology to be correct, and Catholic theology to be incorrect. There’s nothing rude, mean, or competitive about that.

First of all. I agree and I’m Protestant. CC doesn’t need to be yelled at over this. His point is very valid. There’s nothing wrong with the tone either. There’s some frustration coming through but doesn’t strike me as “uncharitable.”

I’ve been trying to read these posts carefully. Did anyone mention the verse in Revelations about not adding to or taking away what’s written? Isn’t that a verse that is used in support in sola scriptura?

It seems that this verse is used against Catholics in two ways:

1. You people have too many books in your Bible. You added to it. Shame on you

and

1. We don’t need anything added including a catechism, canon and so forth. Nothing added. Bible alone.

That’s a verse you might see coughed up from time to time. Incidentally, Catholic brethren and sistren, I heard this verse from my cousin a couple of days ago and she was like. “See? Catholics have extra stuff!” And I just grinned and said, “Oh yeah? Well they say we have missing stuff. Whose right?”
And she sputtered a minute. And I go, “My sources say it was Martin Luther who went through the Bible and threw out what didn’t tickle his fancy.” She just looked at me like I was a brilliant historian or something and shut up. LOL

okay…i know that was a bunny trail. The original intention was to point out that probably some do use that verse in revelations as a means to discard “extra stuff.”

 

[RBushlow]

stollerusa:

Greeting fellow Christians!
Catholics and nonCatholics alike. Based on my reading (outside and inside discussion boards)…

Prima scriptura = scriptures first, then all other rules
SolA scriptura = Scripture is the only infallible rule, Scripture is not the only rule
SolO scriptura = definitely bad Latin and bad practice, solO is oft:
“me and the Bible.”

Those are not the definitions of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura means that the Bible Alone, without any other information, is sufficient. To affirm that Scripture Alone is sufficient, please answer the following questions:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
   There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
   with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

Yours in Christ

 

[Gator]

RBushlow:

Those are not the definitions of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura means that the Bible Alone, without any other information, is sufficient. To affirm that Scripture Alone is sufficient, please answer the following questions:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
   There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
   with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

Yours in Christ

You’ve got a point…not where do these questions get answered in ANY religion…

Everyone should become and Athiest…

 

[Brendan]

Gator:

You’ve got a point…not where do these questions get answered in ANY religion…

Everyone should become and Athiest…

They are answered in Catholicism…by Sacred Tradition and Infallable Teachers.

 

[Gator]

Brendan:

They are answered in Catholicism…by Sacred Tradition and Infallable Teachers.

Answered by the church for the benefit of the church…

Like I said, Everyone should become and Athiest…

 

[RBushlow]

Reformed Rob:

. . . . .Sola Scriptura is not a completely arbitrary . . .

To affirm that Scripture Alone is sufficient (Sola Scriptura), please help me to answer the following questions:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
   There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
   with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

Thank you.

Yours in Christ

 

[jmm08]

RBushlow:

To affirm that Scripture Alone is sufficient (Sola Scriptura), please help me to answer the following questions:

If you carefully read all my posts, I was trying my best to fulfill what was asked “Cough me up ONE scripture passage… to support Sola Scriptura”. And I tried my best to argue for Sola Scriptura.

Then I always explained why I reject Sola Scriptura. Because I do reject Sola Scriptura. I admit, at least one who wants Sola Scriptura grabbed some of my arguments for it and tried to run with it.

From what I understand, St. Thomas Aquinas did the same (built the best argument possible to first support a false theory, and then to establish a very fine argument to knock it down). If you want to see the best boxer in the world fight his best, you need to bring a worthy opponent into the ring. I don’t think I did too bad.

I haven’t been to a seminary (in fact I will soon start as a student in RCIA / RCIC), so I can’t answer your questions correctly. If anyone is an RCIA / RCIC helper in my Northern Virginia parish, I hope I will not be difficult for you.

 

[mark_a]

Little Mary:

How many followers of Sola Scriptura acknowledge that this concept is not in the bible?

Thank you.

So, are we saying that Sola Scriptura is* tradition*?

 

[RolandJS]

…for everyone asking me or commenting to me over in AmbassadorMan Friendship Table thread.

I can much better monitor one thread than three threads

Roland
AmbassadorMan