Defense of Sola Scriptura

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

If the pre-requisite for getting to Heaven is to without question believe everthing the Catholic Church teaches, numbers must be very small.

 

[joe370]

Md, you said:

PR, if you want a list of the N.T. SCRIPTURES that were in existence in the first century open your Bible to its N.T. index.

Is that what the Christian did in the 1st century?

Did God put that table of contents in the bound, codified bible, in the 1st century, so those 1st century Christians could know the difference between sacred scripture and spurious scripture?

Did every Christian (if they chose to) - have a bible to defer to as their final authority, in the 1st century?

Was sola scriptura the final authority for Jesus’ church members for the first 400 years of Christianity?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Could everyone in the Church read? Just as today, probably not.
Did they need someone to read and explain things to them? Just as today, probably so.
Sounds reasonable. Sola Scriptura would then therefore, just as today, have limited function. Ideal and limited merit.

 

[SyCarl]

If the pre-requisite for getting to Heaven is to without question believe everthing the Catholic Church teaches, numbers must be very small.

According to the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM#6L

The penalty is:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P52.HTM#15

In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, the First Vatican Council stated:

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
whether by her solemn judgment
or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kevin,

I am having a little bit of trouble understanding the point you want to make….

Could everyone in the Church read? Just as today, probably not.

Yes, universal literacy has yet to be achieved. But, there were those who cold read - and did read to others. And, while that is nice… it really is not nearly as important as WHAT they were reading. Just because someone claimed that such-and-such was a sacred writing did not make it so! Today, we have similar experiences - but, this time it is with computer hackers who disguise sites to look legitimate, but there are really traps set for the simple or unprepared.or overly trusting. The “Gospel of St. Thomas” is a good example of Gnostic efforts to infiltrate the hearts and minds of the early Catholics.

Did they need someone to read and explain things to them?
it is at this point that we see where major problems can develop - we can start off with a bogus Gnostic gospel and a Gnostic stands up with a ready explanation! Unless the CC exercised its teaching, then you would (in effect) have set the stage for “…private interpretation…” and the unleasing of SS!

Just as today, probably so.
Sounds reasonable. Sola Scriptura would then therefore, just as today, have limited function. Ideal and limited merit.
Actuall, Kevin, unless I have missed something - SS has NO function, it is NOT the ideal and has NO merit. Well, maybe that was too harsh - SS can serve as the bad example for those who fail to realize that it was the Church that gave us the Canon of Scripture - not Scripture that gave us the Church.

Now, this chronological fact truly annoys the SS fans on this list. But, stop and think about it: 1st work of the NT written about 60AD and the last work was written about 100AD. There was no organized and recognized listing of these books into the Canon until about 400AD. But, wait - go to Matt 16 - and about 30 years before the 1st word of the NT was ever written, we have Peter receiving the Keys and Authority from Christ, Who was founding His Church on this weak and sinful former fisherman.

These are just historic facts. They are, however ,able to withstand both scrutiny (unless you come to the table with a prejudical agenda) and, the test of time. . In my opinion, anyone willing to look at the data must conclude that the CC was on the scene before the completed NT and before the Canon which also included the OT.

The Books of the OT had to be established for authenticity. This authentication of both OT and NT was done under the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit. Only Books that were determined by the Catholic Church under the Divine Guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ were included.

God bless

 

[jlhargus]

. The point was made that the Scriptures teach that God promised these things specificly to The Catholic Church. It asked if I had read the referenced Scriptures. I noted that I had. And the obvious.

JL: You’ve failed to identify that CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) CHURCH, which Christ is building and SENT, to teach the WHOLE WORLD till the END.

.Ah, what you are suggesting here, I suspect, is the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses in norming ALL OTHERS - for it DOES regard every single teacher on the planet to be fully accountable, right here and right now. And the rule it uses FOR THEM is “the three-legged-stool” which is:

1). The Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.
2) The Scripture not in writing or on any page - knowable and unalterable - but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.
3) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church, and the views, decisions, opinions, interpretations, arbitrations of such.
These 3 things EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY, all required to be in agreement with the others, so if what the Magisterium of itself holds to a position, then the itnerpretation of itself of the Scripture in itself must be in full agreement with itself - or that interpretation would be wrong, even if that “interpretation” must be of entirely invisible words only it can “see” in the “heart” of its own self.
But friend, it’s pretty obvious that the “rule” here is just itself. OTHERS are right if they agree with ITSELF (makes sense if you assume self is correct). But not even The Catholic Chruch argues that itself is correct because it agrees with itself! I’ve heard LOTS of Catholics try to defend that rubric (if self agrees with self, then self is infallibly and dogmatically correct) but never any Catholic apologists of any training. It’s a silly rubric. No. The Catholic Church is correct because it cannot be incorrect. There you are. Accept it “with docility.”

JL: Long story short, they are accountable to God’s word whether by word or epistle, just as your sola authority tells you. They are accountalbe by word, oral apostolic tradition, as it has been passed on and lived or practiced from the time it was traditioned by the apostles. Tell me to whom and how was Luther accountable. Also isn’t a sola scriptura person accountable to no one but SELF?

.

 

[moondweller]

Md, you said: Is that what the Christian did in the 1st century?You admitted it yourself, Joe, you’re not the smartest guy. I said nothing in my post about what 1st Cen. Christians “did.” I simply told PR that if she wanted to know which N.T. “SCRIPTURES” existed in the 1st Cen., all she needed to do was open her Bible to its N.T. index. How is that statement so difficult for both you and her to understand? It’s not at all complicated.

Was sola scriptura the final authority for Jesus’ church members for the first 400 years of Christianity?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

When you get a chance … I’m still interested in hearing your response to my post to you #653…

You admitted it yourself, Joe, you’re not the smartest guy. I said nothing in my post about what 1st Cen. Christians “did.” I simply told PR that if she wanted to know which N.T. “SCRIPTURES” existed in the 1st Cen., all she needed to do was open her Bible to its N.T. index. How is that statement so difficult for both you and her to understand?
Let me offer an answer which I thing was previously delivered by PR … while we can open the Bible today and see what Scriptures existed in the 1st Century - that were Divinely Inspired - the people living back in the 1st Century could NOT do that! Why? Because the Bible as we know it - complete with Table of Contents did NOT exist. It was not until about 400AD that doing what you said could be accomplished. Now, do you find that hard to understand?

It’s not at all complicated.No, the Scriptures themselves were. “Sola Scriptura” is the exercise of referring to the authority of those theopneustos writings which were already in existence in the 1st Cen. In fact the so-called ECFs quoted from them profusely. it is at this point that your reasoning becomes circular. Refering to the Scriptures - but not the Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) that gave us all the Scriptures? Does that make any sense? Remember Matt 16 - Christ founded His Church of a weak and sinful ex-fisherman - and, He did so for a reason!

Since Moses God never left His people without the authority of His Word, preserved in this world in theopneustos, Holy Writ: Scriptures. And from the beginning men (and angels) have tried to usurp the authority of His Word. Hasn’t changed even to this day.
Now, hang on, MD. I think you are getting a little confused with the facts… Actually, God spoke to Abramham before He spoke to Moses … and God’s Word was kept by Abraham first. Let’s move forward in time to Christ’s arrival on earth. Christ quoted Scripture - and explained ithe Word of God - to both the Devil and the Pharisees… and everyone else who would believe what He said.

So, with all the emphasis on solving or resolving or setteling matters - have you noticed that SS does none of this? In fact, chaos and confusion abound instead of the unifying Word of God. Really. The PCs debate and contradict one another about Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist. But, Christ was really quite clear - just read his Word and don’t evade its clearly and plainly articulated meaning.

Awaiting your response.

God bless

 

[jlhargus]

. The point was made that the Scriptures teach that God promised these things specificly to The Catholic Church. It asked if I had read the referenced Scriptures. I noted that I had. And the obvious.

I think if you could read the texts, you would see Jesus said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” or “The Church of England.”

JL: Yes Jesus said “CHURCH” not “CHURCHES”. You’ve failed to identify that CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) CHURCH, which Christ is building and SENT, to teach the WHOLE WORLD till the END. Give me scripture and historic evidence for any other, than Catholic. Catholics have the scriptures and historic writings of the fathers for evidence.

. Ah, what you are suggesting here, I suspect, is the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses in norming ALL OTHERS - for it DOES regard every single teacher on the planet to be fully accountable, right here and right now. And the rule it uses FOR THEM is “the three-legged-stool” which is:

1). The Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.

JL: You are assuming, wrongly, that, that teaching authority just gets up one day and has CHOSEN out of the air. We are all going to believe X from now on. Without any prior knowledge, theological discussions, OR Apostolic Tradition of X, BY word OR epistle.

Show me that sola scriptura saying, the WHOLE WORD OF GOD is NOW contained in the written word (scripture), you can’t. You contradict your own sole authority, by ingnoring what you don’t like. Is that accountability? How do you interpret those scriptures away, by going OUTSIDE scripture your sole authority, thereby being accountabe to SELF ONLY.

[2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, **WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE.]

[2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP **THE GIFT OF GOD, which is **IN THEE BY **the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN **US **THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, ** and of love, and of a sound mind.]

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the **THINGS that thou hast **HEARD of me **among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.]

. 2) The Scripture not in writing or on any page - knowable and unalterable - but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.

JL: If it isn’t in writing then it isn’t script is it? As the written word of God, scripture, tells you the Gospel, or WORD of GOD, is BOTH oral=word OR written=epistle. That oral word is not just pulled from the air as you try to suggest. It’s found in the living traditons of the Church as lived or practiced form the beginning.

. 3) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church, and the views, decisions, opinions, interpretations, arbitrations of such.

These 3 things EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY, all required to be in agreement with the others, so if what the Magisterium of itself holds to a position, then the itnerpretation of itself of the Scripture in itself must be in full agreement with itself - or that interpretation would be wrong, even if that “interpretation” must be of entirely invisible words only it can “see” in the “heart” of its own self.

But friend, it’s pretty obvious that the “rule” here is just itself. OTHERS are right if they agree with ITSELF (makes sense if you assume self is correct). But not even The Catholic Chruch argues that itself is correct because it agrees with itself! I’ve heard LOTS of Catholics try to defend that rubric (if self agrees with self, then self is infallibly and dogmatically correct) but never any Catholic apologists of any training. It’s a silly rubric. No. The Catholic Church is correct because it cannot be incorrect. There you are. Accept it “with docility.”

JL: Long story short, the Magisterium cannot hold a position contrary to scripture, oral apostolic tradition. They are accountable to God’s word whether by word or epistle, just as your sola authority tells you. Tell me to whom and how was Luther accountable. Also, how would sola scriptura person be accountable to anyone but SELF?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jlhargus,

I think you not only hit the nail squarely on the head - but, identified the internal contradictions that have been repeatedly presented…

JL: Long story short, the Magisterium cannot hold a position contrary to scripture, oral apostolic tradition. They are accountable to God’s word whether by word or epistle, just as your sola authority tells you. Tell me to whom and how was Luther accountable. Also, how would sola scriptura person be accountable to anyone but SELF?

This pretty well sums it up, Jlhargus, Thanks for such a well written post.

God bless/COLOR]

 

[ncgolf]

Since Moses God never left His people without the authority of His Word, preserved in this world in theopneustos, Holy Writ: Scriptures. And from the beginning men (and angels) have tried to usurp the authority of His Word. Hasn’t changed even to this day.

This from a website jewfaq.org/torah.htm kind of a Judaism 101.

"Oral Torah: The Talmud
In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. "

Sounds pretty Catholic to me … and not even written by a Catholic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ncgolf,

This sounds rather Catholic to me, too…

Considering Christ and His Apostles were all Jews - as were most of the early converts - do you think this idea was just carried forward under the inspiring Hand of God?

God bless

This from a website jewfaq.org/torah.htm kind of a Judaism 101.

"Oral Torah: The Talmud
In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Torah,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. "

Sounds pretty Catholic to me … and not even written by a Catholic.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… The point was made that the Scriptures teach that God promised these things specificly to The Catholic Church. It asked if I had read the referenced Scriptures. I noted that I had. And the obvious.

I think if you could read the texts, you would see Jesus said “church.” He did NOT say, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” or “The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” or “The Church of England.”

.

You’ve failed to identify that CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL) CHURCH, which Christ is building and SENT, to teach the WHOLE WORLD till the END.

That’s my point.

Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church. The claim of The Catholic Church alone that Jesus promised/authorized all kinds of things to The Catholic Church alone is entirely, undeniably baseless. He said “church.” He never said, “The Catholic Church.”

… Ah, what you are suggesting here, I suspect, is the rule/canon that The Catholic Church uses in norming ALL OTHERS - for it DOES regard every single teacher on the planet to be fully accountable, right here and right now. And the rule it uses FOR THEM is “the three-legged-stool” which is:

1). The Tradition of The Catholic Church as chosen, defined and interpreted by The Catholic Church.

.

You are assuming that teaching authority just gets up one day and has CHOSEN out of the air.

The point is, this “Tradition” is simply whatever it alone says it is and means whatever it alone says it means. It’s HARDLY outside, above and beyond The Catholic Church, it is wholly the creation of The Catholic Church. If I wrote a book, “The Views of Josiah” and then said, "The rule/canon for the correctness of the views of Josiah is “The Views of Josiah” I think we’d all see this is simply a pure circle of self-authentication: self simply agrees with self. Friend, that’s what we have here.

[2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR

gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethern, stand fast, and hold fast to the teachings which ye have been taught, whether by our word or by our EPISTLE.]

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF **ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the THINGS that thou hast HEARD **of me among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.]

Absolutely! Not a word about The Catholic Church or about Catholic Tradition - as chosen by The Catholic Church and as interpreted by The Catholic Church.

The first “leg” of the rule The Catholic Church insists be used when norming ALL OTHERS (it itself exempts it itself from all norming - regardless of the rule) is the Tradition OF ITSELF - as it defines, chooses and interprets. Itself.

. 2) The Scripture not in writing or on any page - knowable and unalterable - but rather “in the heart” of The Catholic Church as interpreted by The Catholic Church.

.

If it isn’t in writing then it isn’t script is it? As the written word of God, scripture, tells you the Gospel, or WORD of GOD, is BOTH oral=word OR written=epistle.

You are missing the point. The second “leg” of the rule/canon it insists upon for all OTHERS (not for itself) is simply what it “written” IN THE “HEART” OF ITSELF - as interpetred by itself. Read your Catechism # 85 and 113. It’s just itself.

. 3) The Magisterium of The Catholic Church as chosen by The Catholic Church among those pledged upon death to uphold the teachings and claims of The Catholic Church, and the views, decisions, opinions, interpretations, arbitrations of such.

These 3 things EQUALLY and INSEPARABLY, all required to be in agreement with the others, so if what the Magisterium of itself holds to a position, then the itnerpretation of itself of the Scripture in itself must be in full agreement with itself - or that interpretation would be wrong, even if that “interpretation” must be of entirely invisible words only it can “see” in the “heart” of its own self.

But friend, it’s pretty obvious that the “rule” here is just itself. OTHERS are right if they agree with ITSELF (makes sense if you assume self is correct). But not even The Catholic Chruch argues that itself is correct because it agrees with itself! I’ve heard LOTS of Catholics try to defend that rubric (if self agrees with self, then self is infallibly and dogmatically correct) but never any Catholic apologists of any training. It’s a silly rubric. No. The Catholic Church is correct because it cannot be incorrect. There you are. Accept it “with docility.”

.

JL: Long story short, the Magisterium cannot hold a position contrary to scripture, oral apostolic tradition.

Ah, that IS the insistance of The Catholic Church, and IS the position you are required to take - in the exclusive case of The Catholic Church alone. Self exempts self from accountability, replacing the issue of its correctness with the insistance that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” Yup. CCC # 87, etc., etc. Ironcially, Catholics ridicule this rubric as an absurd and dangerous, and yet defend it as infallible.

.

 

[ncgolf]

Hi, Ncgolf,

This sounds rather Catholic to me, too…

Considering Christ and His Apostles were all Jews - as were most of the early converts - do you think this idea was just carried forward under the inspiring Hand of God?

God bless

Why not … it worked for God before … this method by God would not have been something unfamiliar … the circumstances and teachings changed but God still used hand picked people.

I will paraphrase the quote with updated circumstances.

“Oral Tradition: The New Testament
In addition to the written scriptures we have an “Oral Tradition,” a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Catholics believe God taught the Oral Tradition to his apostles and they taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained in oral form until about 392 CE, when the oral tradition was compiled and written down in a document called the New Testament”

 

[PRmerger]

According to the Code of Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM#6L

The penalty is:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P52.HTM#15

In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, the First Vatican Council stated:

To which Catholics give a firm Amen!

For this is what the Sacred Scriptures tell us:
[BIBLEDRB]Heb 13:17[/BIBLEDRB]

However, did you notice that there’s nothing in the references you cited about what’s a “pre-requesite” to enter into heaven?

 

[PRmerger]

I simply told PR that if she wanted to know which N.T. “SCRIPTURES” existed in the 1st Cen., all she needed to do was open her Bible to its N.T. index.

Can you tell me what the 3rd century Christians used to determine the “NT index”, moon?

Did they all know that Thessalonians was theopneustos but that the Didache wasn’t?

If so, how did they know?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

According to the Code of Canon Law:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM#6L

The penalty is:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P52.HTM#15

In the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, the First Vatican Council stated:

I would like to read how you interpret these texts.
In my experience the Spiritual Life is a struggle. If by fighting one does not get to Heaven, I am damned.

 

[jlhargus]

.That’s my point.
Jesus never so much as even mentioned The Catholic Church. The claim of The Catholic Church alone that Jesus promised/authorized all kinds of things to The Catholic Church alone is entirely, undeniably baseless. He said “church.” He never said, “The Catholic Church.”

JL: I didn’t say he did. And my point, I’m asking you to identify that one church Christ is building. You keep dodging the question.

. The point is, this “Tradition” is simply whatever it alone says it is and means whatever it alone says it means. It’s HARDLY outside, above and beyond The Catholic Church, it is wholly the creation of The Catholic Church.

JL: Tell me what, outside, above and beyond itself, did Luther, or your particular denomination use? How and to what are Luther or your faith group accountable?

.If I wrote a book, “The Views of Josiah” and then said, "The rule/canon for the correctness of the views of Josiah is “The Views of Josiah” I think we’d all see this is simply a pure circle of self-authentication: self simply agrees with self. Friend, that’s what we have here.

JL: So tell me who better to know the correctness of the views of Josiah than Josiah, who lived it, before HE wrote the book? He could go to family members if not sure of a particular event when he was young, just as the Chruch goes to family Tradition whether by word or epistle. Lets cut through the babble and get to the point.

Absolutely! Not a word about The Catholic Church or about Catholic Tradition - as chosen by The Catholic Church and as interpreted by The Catholic Church.

JL: Did I memtion the Catholic Church? No, you obviously have no answer, so you create a smoke screen to divert attention. The following is what I asked;

Show me that sola scriptura saying, the WHOLE WORD OF GOD is NOW contained in the written word (scripture), you can’t. You contradict your own sole authority, by ingnoring what you don’t like. Is that accountability? How do you interpret those scriptures away, by going OUTSIDE scripture your sole authority, thereby being accountabe to SELF ONLY.

[2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, **WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE.]

[2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP **THE GIFT OF GOD, which is **IN THEE BY **the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN **US **THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, ** and of love, and of a sound mind.]

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the **THINGS that thou hast **HEARD of me **among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.]

Here is the question again; Show me that sola scriptura saying, the WHOLE WORD OF GOD is NOW contained in the written word (scripture), you can’t. You contradict your own sole authority, by ingnoring what you don’t like. Is that accountability? How do you interpret those scriptures away, by going OUTSIDE scripture your sole authority, thereby being accountabe to SELF ONLY.

The first “leg” of the rule The Catholic Church insists be used when norming ALL OTHERS (it itself exempts it itself from all norming - regardless of the rule) is the Tradition OF ITSELF - as it defines, chooses and interprets. Itself.

JL: Ok, please explain how the Church EXEMPTS itself from itself or whomever it exempts itself from.

You are missing the point. The second “leg” of the rule/canon it insists upon for all OTHERS (not for itself) is simply what it “written” IN THE “HEART” OF ITSELF - as interpetred by itself. Read your Catechism # 85 and 113. It’s just itself.

JL: I think you do a wonderful job with double talk. At this point I don’t even know who beau beau is. However I do know the HEART of the Church is the Holy Spirit, it’s very soul and life force, praise God.

Ah, that IS the insistance of The Catholic Church, and IS the position you are required to take - in the exclusive case of The Catholic Church alone. Self exempts self from accountability, replacing the issue of its correctness with the insistance that all just accept whatever it alone says “with docility.” Yup. CCC # 87, etc., etc. Ironcially, Catholics ridicule this rubric as an absurd and dangerous, and yet defend it as infallible. .

JL: Well you seemed to acctept the doctrine of the Trinity and the canon of the NT on Tradition from that very Church.

 

[jlhargus]

Hi, Jlhargus,

I think you not only hit the nail squarely on the head - but, identified the internal contradictions that have been repeatedly presented…

This pretty well sums it up, Jlhargus, Thanks for such a well written post.

God bless/COLOR]

JL: Thanks Tqualey, that’s always nice to hear.

 

[jlhargus]

. So, a teacher is correct if he agrees with The Catholic Church;

JL: You got that right, now tell me how do you know when your pastor is interpreting and teaching his version of sola scriptura incorrectly? Is it because it disagrees with your particular sola interpretation, then how do you know if you are correct?

. ergo The Catholic Church is correct cuz it agrees with The Catholic Church. If self agrees with self then self if correct, is that a rubric you REALLY want to defend?

The Catholic Church is correct because it is in agreemen with those Traditions handed on by the apostles, whether by WORD=oral OR by EPISTLE=scripture. Oral and Scripture Traditions MUST agree. The Catholic Church is correct formost because Christ promised and is it’s guarantee. One example, of abundant evidence, found in your own sola authority; whatever YOU BIND on EARTH will be BOUND in HEAVEN, whatever YOU LOOSE on earth WILL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN.

Also tell me if self doesn’t agree with self is self right, or is self CONFUSED on what is right?

. And, friend, surely you know that there is ZERO - absolutely ZERO - substantiation for the claim that the 2,875 points in my Catholic Catechism were all taught as such in 31 AD.

JL: Who said they were taught as taught in 31AD? That’s you erroneous assumption. I can think of one the Trinity. The concept was there, but not the definition as taught today. Another would be the NT. In 31AD the NT was not even a concept. In fact, it took almost four hundred years before the NT was defined and taught as today. The entire Christian Word of God was Traditioned, by oral teaching about twenty years before the NT was even started, little lone complete. Yet the Church was up and running, converting, and establishing churches thru Christian Tradition, the oral Word of God. Just like Paul told Timothy;

[2Tim1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou STIR UP **THE GIFT OF GOD, which is **IN THEE BY **the PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS. 7 For GOD HATH NOT GIVEN **US **THE SPIRIT OF FEAR; **BUT OF POWER, ** and of love, and of a sound mind.]

[2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the **THINGS that thou hast **HEARD of me **among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **

[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]

[2Thes 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BRETHREN, stand fast, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, **WHETHER by WORD, OR our EPISTLE.]

. And let’s say it did, what in the world does that have to do with it being infallible and incapable of error?

JL: I’m not sure if you are saying here the Church teaches the CCC is an infallible document or the Church itself is infallible. The CCC is not an infallible document, the Church is infallible on faith and morals.

If the Church could teach error then the gates of Hades would prevail against it. Christ said whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. He also sent the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into ALL TRUTH, not some truth. Paul tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of TRUTH. If it taught error that would NOT be a pillar and ground of truth. This is all in your sola authority, I’m starting to think sola scriptura means, “Sola what I want scripture to say”. I could go on about infallibility, but this line is about sola scriptura. That Tower of Babel and tradition of men made a doctine of God about 1520. Satan’s most loved tradition of men, which only divides and scatters people of faith. How many faith groups has sola scriptura united? None. How many has it divided? Look in the yellow pages under churches.

Actually, your denomination has changed its Catechism FAR, FAR more often than mine has (not a single letter or punctunation mark has been changed from mine since 1529).

JL: Well your denomination hasn’t been around two thousand years either, it’s still a babe on milk not meat. So do you read your catechism in German? Well I see you have a tradition, which your faith group and you have accepted docilely, along with the NT books, which you accept docilely as inspired, from the Catholic Church.

By the fact you make such a point, noting, nothing has changed, not even a single letter OR punctuation mark, since 1529. Strongly suggests you hold that as a rule/canon or norm of faith, even sacred. Sort of like some who hold fast to a tradition of men that the KJV is the only true English bible.

Tell me did Lutherans self, agree with self or disagree with self when self wrote self catechism by self in 1529? If self agreed with self then according to yourself, Self exempts self from accountability and is only accountable to self itself. Isn’t that right?