Defense of Sola Scriptura

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Is this related to discussions among Catholic scholars (and in Lutheran/Catholic dialogues) that transubstantiation can be understood in a sacramental sense? If so, ISTM that it reduces the distance between our understandings of the real presence.

Jon

Dear Jon, there are many areas in which Roman Catholics and Lutherans reach agreement

The idea of transubstantiation was introduced into the Roman Catholic Church during sessions of Fourth Lateran Council (1215) as one way of explaining a Mystery, and it arrived as a scholastic understanding not a substance of the Faith. The Council of Trent (1545) found the ‘Transubstantiated Eucharist’ understanding “as most fitting.”

(“Lutheran - Roman Catholic Dialogue” October 1, 1967)

"On the 2 major issues which we have discussed at length…the progress has been immense. Despite all remaining differences in the ways we speak and think of the eucharistic sacrifice and Our Lord’s Presence in the Supper, we are no longer able to regard ourselves as divided in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith on these 2 points. We therefore prayerfully ask our fellow Lutherans and Catholics to examine their consciences and root out many ways of thinking, speaking and acting, both individually and as churches, which have obscured their unity in Christ on these as on many other matter.’

(“Bread of Life: Roman Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist, Northeastern Ohio Synod - Youngstown Diocese. A Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist,” Cheryl Peterson, October 28, 2007)

“One of the things the Lutheran participants in that dialogue learned (Lutheran - Roman Catholic Dialogue, October 1, 1967) is that contemporary Catholic exposition of transubstantiation intend to affirm the fact of Christ’s presence and of the change which takes place, not to explain how Christ becomes present.
*Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession *affirms that Christ is truly present *‘under the form of bread and wine’ *- ‘In the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are truly offered with those things that are seen, bread and wine.’ **The true body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually through faith but orally with the bread and wine because of the sacramental union of the elements with the body and blood of Christ.”
**

Pope Benedict XV1 ( then acting as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), 2002:

"The Roman Catholic and Lutheran views are not necessarily irreconcilable"

(Pope Benedict XV1 is not a Thomist theologian.)

 

[guanophore]

No he didn’t.

There were a number of issues that were brought to the Council, but one of the most important to Constantine was the observance of the Sabbath. Half the empire was observing Saturday, and half Sunday. This was bad for commerce, since there were two non-business days each week. He wanted them to cut it down to one.

Another was the Arian controversy. The bickering between bishops over the nature of Christ was also divisive for the Empire and bad for business. He wanted them to hammer it out.

He commissioned Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea - not even the Bishop of Rome.

commissioned him for what?

The western church didn’t take on the moniker “The Catholic Church” (claiming catholicity) until much later; at the time of the schism when the eastern church took on the moniker “The Orthodox Church” (claiming orthodoxy).

Honestly Moon! It is embarrassing to read such things. A little study of your family history will indicate that this is blatantly false.

Here is a Reformed website where you can get your misinformation corrected. Even the enemies of the Catholic Church will admit that the Church called herself Catholic from the time the book of Acts was written. You can find this reference in St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.

The Bible never mentions nor addresses either of them.

The Church was unified in East and West, and scripture describes it as BOTH Catholic and Orthodox. Why is it so difficult to accept that there was only one church?

Constantine recognized “Christianity,” which was later legalized and became the s tate religion. “Catholicism” was a religious development by men.

This is what you have been taught to believe, apparently based upon misinformation about history. Perhaps you can show how “men” founded the Church?

Why is the Church described as Catholic in the NT? Why did the disciples of the Apostles call the Church Catholic? Did Luke invent the Catholic Church? Did the early fathers?

 

[guanophore]

Well, it means that you **believe** that Christ submits Himself to the whims of sinful man.

Richard, you clearly do not understand Lutheran theology any more than you do Catholic. You have misunderstood JohnNC’s post.

Your anti-catholic post is very tempting, but it is way off topic in this thread.

I recommend starting a new thread if you want to discuss Eucharist.

Would you like to try to defend the unbiblical doctrine of SS?

 

[guanophore]

. Let me leave you with a restatement of my position. Scripture was given to us for one reason and only one reason. that reason was to manifest to us God’s plan of salvation.

It is interesting that Scripture says the opposite. On the contrary, God sent His Son to manifest to us God’s plan of salvation. Jesus founded a Church, to whom He committed the responsibilty to continue the manifestation of God’s plan of salvation. The Church produced the Bible, so the faithful, who had received the faith from those to whom it was committed, would have a testimony to what they had been told.

. the manifestation of Jesus Christ. Scripture (the bible) is all sufficient to accomplish that task.

Scripture is sufficient to show us Christ. however, He manifests Himself through the Church, and it is to the Church we can come to find Him manifested.

. Jesus instituted His church as a teaching organization to bring that message to the world.

Among other things, yes. He gave Authority to that Church, to settle disputes (arbitrate), feed, and guide the disciples into all truth.

. It was not instituted to develope doctrine or set dogmas.

Why do you suppose Jesus let them jump off the track so fast? why did God allow accounts of their doing these things in His inspired inerrant word, and leave them looking like it was ok? Why is there no condemnation in scripture each time the Church developed doctrine and dogma?

. Christ’s church was given to us full blown.

It is interesting that the Scripture says the opposite. There are many references to the Church growing, and receiving new guidance and revelation from God.

. We don’t need to improve God’s word.

Indeed not. We do, however, need constant instruction in how to understand and apply it.

. What we as the body of Christ are instructed to do is shown in the great commission. Matt.28: 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This was an instruction that was given to the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. Only those who are in unity with them have the freedom to apply it to themselves.

. The first use of the word teach is matheteuo which means to make disciples. The second use is the Greek word didasko which simply means to instruct. So, what Jesus is saying here is that we need to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations and the way we do that is to instruct “them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Where do we find “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Well, we find it in the bible. The word of God.

Certainly a great deal is found in Scripture. However, the Scripture does not claim to be a full compendium of the faith. Your own testimony makes it clear that the Teachings were committed to the Teaching Authority, and it is to them that all His commandments were given.

. As for
2Thess.2:15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

There is nothing in this verse that would lead me to believe that “the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word” are anything different than the epistles or the word of God The Bible.

Why would they need to keep both the written and the in person traditions if they were all the same?

Also, why did the recipients of the letter understand that they meant the Sacred Traditions? Why did they continue to preserve these to this present day, if they were the same as the Scripture?

Why was God so weak that He was unable to make the church understand they made a mistake? How come the One who comes across as all powerful in Rev. was not able to convince these same communities that keeping the Sacred Traditions was wrong?

. So, the bible is all we need to show us God’s plan of salvation.

Everyone has a choice. If you prefer the reader’s digest version of Christianity, that is your perogative. I could see why it would seem simplier than the whole faith.

. That plan is manifested in Jesus Christ and that’s enough for me and well, you to if you but come to Him in faith.

Do you think that, because Catholics want the whole Truth rather than an abbreviated one, they don’t come in faith?

 

[guanophore]

Transubstantiation is an **Aristotelico-Thomistic doctrine **regarding the mystery.

“Recent advances in biblical scholarship have shown us how biblical terms must be understood in the light of the mentality of the times in which they were used, and the discovery of the original meaning has called for changes in the theological interpretation of these terms. An even stronger case can be made out for the re-interpretation of the terms used in dogmatic definition. Hence we are entitled to go back beyond Trent in our search for the true meaning of the word ‘substance’ used in the definition of transubstantiation” (Fr Davis on transubstantiation, Sophia, Vol. 3 No. 3, October, 1964)

The Eastern Catholics never embraced the Western philosophical approaches to theology. The Thomistic doctrine of transubstantiation seems foreign from the Eastern perspective. The Eastern Rites have chosen not to create a dispute about it, along with Purgatory, and other Western notions, so that communion with the successor of Peter can be maintained.

 

[guanophore]

Is this related to discussions among Catholic scholars (and in Lutheran/Catholic dialogues) that transubstantiation can be understood in a sacramental sense? If so, ISTM that it reduces the distance between our understandings of the real presence.

Jon

Yes, as well as reunification with Orthodoxy, whose conception of the mystery of the real presence is actually closer to the Lutheran than the Latin 'Rite.

We are off topic.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Here is a Reformed website where you can get your misinformation corrected. Even the enemies of the Catholic Church will admit that the Church called herself Catholic from the time the book of Acts was written. You can find this reference in St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.
The Church was unified in East and West, and scripture describes it as BOTH Catholic and Orthodox. Why is it so difficult to accept that there was only one church?
Why is the Church described as Catholic in the NT? Why did the disciples of the Apostles call the Church Catholic? Did Luke invent the Catholic Church? Did the early fathers?

After all the Apostles had died, the believers looked to their successors to continue their work. One of these successors was a disciple of the Apostle John named Ignatius (A.D. 106). He was a little boy at the time of Christ. It is recorded that he was the little child that Christ set in the midst of the disciples when He said: “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mtt 18:2). When Ignatius grew up he became the Bishop of Antioch, the city where the first disciples of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
All significant decisions were made only in council, no one patriarch or bishop having absolute superiority over another, but all working together in equality. All took council with one another, having Christ as head, and there was no one person who ruled the Church. Through this hierarchy the Church had succeeded for centuries in maintaining unity.
In the 9th century the East and the West began to drift apart. The Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) began to introduce new and foreign ideas into the Faith. One of these ideas was the supremacy of the Roman Pope over the rest of the Christian Church, another was the introduction of a new Creed.
Since the Orthodox Church would not compromise and allow any changes to be made in the Faith, in 1054 the Roman Church officially severed itself from the rest of the Church.
The division was based on issues of authority and theology.
The argument that Jesus’ words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” applied exclusively to the bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, made less of an impression in the East than it did in the West. The rock in question was not originally interpreted, by Eastern or Western theologians, as having anything to do with the papacy; it was understood to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ. Perhaps more to the point, Peter led the church in Antioch before he led the church in Rome. The Patriarch of Antioch is in this sense as much a successor to Peter as the Pope of Rome.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Eastern Catholics never embraced the Western philosophical approaches to theology. The Thomistic doctrine of transubstantiation seems foreign from the Eastern perspective. The Eastern Rites have chosen not to create a dispute about it, along with Purgatory, and other Western notions, so that communion with the successor of Peter can be maintained.

Cf. 1139

I will not go off into a theological diatribe on Eastern Orthodox theology. This is not the time

 

[Vile_Servant]

Properly using the practice of sola scriptura, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession sites scripture, and its proper reflection of it by the ECF’s and the whole of the Church, east and west, in attesting to the Truth that, as it says, “that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present”.

Hope that answerrs your question.
Jon

Thanks for your answer, Jon.

Why do you consider sola scripture a PRACTICE rather than a DOCTRINE ?

James White defined sola scriptura as follows;
"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

 

[joe370]

No he didn’t. He commissioned Eusebius

, Bishop of Caesarea - not even the Bishop of Rome.

So, you are saying that Eusebius founded the CC?

The western church didn’t take on the moniker "The Catholic Church

Who founded the CC? It was not Eusebius. Just give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the CC that traversed the centuries alongside the unknown church founded by Jesus, then give me the name of that unknown true church that traversed the centuries alongside the man-made CC? If you say: it is the way or it is the church; Jesus never named his church, then please provide historical evidence of of this church that existed from the 1st century yo the 16th century. If the CC was not commissioned by God, and none of the PC’s were commissioned by God, then where is the church, in the world today, commissioned by God? So far, we have ruled out the EOC, the CC and all PC’s. Please don’t give me the same answer that you always give me, for that makes no sense. I am looking for the church founded by God, in the 1st century, as opposed to the church founded by mere men, in the 4th century, the 11th century, the 16th, 17th…or 21st century. I have a feeling I know what you are going to say…LOL…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Who founded the CC? It was not Eusebius. Just give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the CC that traversed the centuries alongside the unknown church founded by Jesus, then give me the name of that unknown true church that traversed the centuries alongside the man-made CC? If you say: it is the way or it is the church; Jesus never named his church, then please provide historical evidence of of this church that existed from the 1st century yo the 16th century. If the CC was not commissioned by God, and none of the PC’s were commissioned by God, then where is the church, in the world today, commissioned by God? So far, we have ruled out the EOC, the CC and all PC’s. Please don’t give me the same answer that you always give me, for that makes no sense. I am looking for the church founded by God, in the 1st century, as opposed to the church founded by mere men, in the 4th century, the 11th century, the 16th, 17th…or 21st century. I have a feeling I know what you are going to say…LOL…

Please Cf. 1139 Thank you.

 

[jlhargus]

I cannot stand firm in something I’ve never heard. Nor can you. But God can certainly hold me accountable to His Word which He has preserved in this world in theopnustos Holy Writ (the way He’s preserved His Word in this world since Moses). And all those who teach will be held accountable to it. This accountability is what SS is about.As I said in my prior post, Catholics cite 2 Thess. 2:15 as a proof text for “oral Tradition.” There it’s stated “whether by word or letter from us.” Unless you were there you cannot hold to what they taught “by word.” But you can stand firm in what has been Divinely preserved in written form. That verse states absolutely nothing about standing firm and holding to “tradition” mystically “discerned” by Popes and Bishops centuries later. This is a good example of Catholic “Tradition” (that which the Church presently believes and practices) determining what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Contrary to Jude’s appeal for the brethren to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” Catholics seem to use the phrase “implicit in Scripture” quite liberally. Especially with its Marian dogmas.

JL: Yet you accept the oral Traditions and definition of the NT canon, and the Trinity, as they were discerned, by those Popes and Bishops. Sola scriptura persons seem to completely ignore when possible, and if not possible, to go totally outside their own sola scriptura authority. And invent traditions of men, to nullify the written Word of God, when they don’t like what it tells them. An example would be the claim, ALL Traditions are now contained in the written Tradition of scripture.

As a Catholic, I can and do hear and hold Traditions whether by word OR epistle. You can, but will not hear, because you hold firm to your particular faith group’s traditions of men, not realizing they are oral traditions, yet you can’t find them in scripture. Your so called sole authority the written Word of God clearly tells you in 2Thes HOLD FAST to the TRADITIONS taught WHETHER by WORD or EPISTLE.] If you can’t stand firm in the Traditions taught, WHEATHER by WORD or EPISTLE, why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to tell us to do so, if we can’t? Where is the scripture telling us all Traditions are now in the scriptures? God can also hold you accountable for not hearing and listening to those He has SENT to teach the whole world till the end. Your sola authority tells you, you cannot neglect to hear the Church Mt18:17.

You don’t HEAR, because you do not LISTEN to that ONE SENT APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP, [1Cor 1:9 God is faithful **you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT … 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?.]

[Hb 13:17 **Obey your LEADERS and submit to them for they are keeping watch over your souls as men who will have to give account Let them do this joyfully and not sadly for that would be of no advantage to you]. Your sola authority also tells us, listening to those leaders, in that ONE FELOWSHIP, established by God and led by the Holy Spirit, we will know TRUTH from ERROR

[1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR] Listening to that Fellowship, to which Christ gave HIS authority, to TEACH ALL nations TILL THE END,Mt28:19-21. Sola scriptura tells us if you can’t agree start your own church using the bible as your sole authority, to justify you position, like all the other thousands of disagreeing groups.

And again what does that written Word of God tell you in, [Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but **IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you WHATSOEVER YE shall BIND on earth shall be BOUND IN HEAVEN: and WHATSOEVER YE shall LOOSE on earth shall be LOOSED IN HEAVEN]

That Church the very BRIDE of Christ, Christ doesn’t have a harem of thousands, but ONE BRIDE. The ONE and only FELLOWSHIP, which your OWN authority calls the PILLAR and GROUND of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15]. Your own authority tells you again in, [EPH 3:9 **And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is THE FELLOWSHIP of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created all things by Jesus Christ 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH THE manifold WISDOM OF GOD 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.] 2Cor5:20 Now then WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, AS THOUGH GOD DID BESEECH YOU BY US: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.]

Yet you ignore your OWN authority and follow a tradition of men in order to nullify the Word of God, because it contradicts the tradition of men handed on to you. Also I think it is a failure of faith and trust that Christ can keep his promise to preserve and lead that one Fellowship into all TRUTH. A lot of Protestant’s seem to want something they can individually control and sola scriptura fits the bill.

 

[jlhargus]

It’s true the Trinity is implicitly revealed in Scripture since we can see in them that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and each are referred to as separate Persons by the personal pronoun, “He,” and each exercises His own Divine will. This is what is meant by “implicit.” Something taught by clear implication. No such thing can be stated regarding the Scriptures and the supposed “Assumption of Mary.”

JL: So simple and so CLEARLY implicit it only took several councils, much controversy, many heresies and a few hundred years to discern and formulate an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. It is so CLEARLY implicit that several groups today can deceive many into rejecting the Trinity, using your same authority. Hind sight is truly 20/20, to bad they didn’t have your expertise during the controversy.

In your sola authority, Jn6:54-56, Christ EXPLICITLY tells us his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed. How is it something IMPLIED by scripture can be so clearly and simply discerned, yet something EXPLICIT in scripture cannot? Because it contradicts those doctrines of men handed down thru a tradition of men. By which those scriptures are interpreted.

In Rev. 12 it’s the “sign” (NASB) that appears in heaven, not the woman. The heavenly “sign” reveals a woman, “clothed with the sun, and the moon under under her feet, and on her head a crown with twelve stars” Obviously this should not be understood literally but symbolically (cf. Gen. 37:9-11). She gives birth to a “male” “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (yet future, see Rev. 19:11-16). Now according to this “sign” it is the “male” who is caught up to heaven, not the woman. She remains on the earth and is persecuted by the dragon and is taken into the wilderness (vss. 13-14). In fact, according to the sign the woman is NEVER seen in heaven but is always seen on earth. So if you insist on interpreting Mary as the woman in Rev. 12, then you must conclude that Mary is NOT in heaven but still on earth. But Mary is in heaven and still awaiting the resurrection of her body unto glory along with all the other saints who have died in Christ (Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:15-18).

JL: The woman IS the sign IN heaven. If the woman can only be symbolic the child and the dragon can only be symbolic.

[RV 12:1 And **there appeared A great wonder [SIGN] IN HEAVEN A WOMAN clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered] The woman is a person=Mary and a sign, symbolic of the Church Old and New Covenant people of God.

[RV 12:3 And there appeared ANOTHER WONDER in heaven and behold **A GREAT RED DRAGON having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads] The great dragon is a person=Satan and a sign, symbolic of empires, kingdoms, governments and organizations that oppress the people of God through the ages

[RV 12:5 And SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN CHILD who was TO RULE ALL NATIONS with a rod of iron and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne] The child is a person=Christ, symbolic of the Davidic Kingdom.

Nowhere is Mary ever revealed as the “ark of the New Covenant.” Such would be a misnomer since it is revealed that Jesus is not Himself the New Covenant but the “Mediator” of it, and that not through His birth but His sacrificial, substitutionary death (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). In fact very little is said about Mary in the Scriptures; reason being the Christian faith is about Christ.

JL: I have never heard any Catholic, say or imply, Jesus is the New Covenant. I am at a loss as to why you post that statement, to me it is irrelevant.

It is implied, as is the Trinity, in several scriptures, that Mary is ark of the New Covenant, Christ always refered to his mother as, woman. Do you suppose Luke or the Holy Spirit were not aware of the parallel scriptures in 2Sam6 and Lk1, was that just a coincidence. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6294792&postcount=902

[And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. Rv11:19-Rv12:1-2] I’m guessing you know there are no chapters and verses in the inspired scriptures they were added as aids to locate passages. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6294777&postcount=901

 

[jlhargus]

You see, JL, this is another good example of Catholic Tradition (that which the Church presently believes and practices) determining what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. IOW, forcing the Scriptures to say what it believes rather than believe what the Scriptures have to say. The content and context of the text eluded and the meaning of the text made to conform to one’s own peculiar belief. Thereby fulfilling the adage, “Every text taken out of context is a pretext” (often practiced by cults)

JL: You mean, like the total contradictions of the traditions of men made doctrines of God, forcing the scriptures to say, sola scriptura, all Tradition is now in the written scriptures, baptism is a declaration of faith and not nescessary, once saved always saved, faith ALONE, communion is symbolic, rapture, dispensationalism, invisible church, etc…
Yes as the adage says, every text taken out of context is a pretext. Context is important, show me the context for; sola scriptura, all Traditions are now in scripture, or any other above that applies to your particular faith tradition. Show me a teaching of the Church that contradicts scripture.

Unless your “magisterium” was actually there they have no idea what was actually taught by the Apostles “by word.” It’s really as simple as that.

JL: But that magisterium was acutally there, and SENT by Christ, in the beginning and will be there, by laying on of hands in an unbroken line, TEACHING all Christ commanded TILL THE END. That magisterium can know what was taught as she can find in her lived practices those same teaching Traditions, whether by word OR epistle. It is the Holy Spirit who will bring to that magisterium’s memory all Christ has taught. We can bank on it ,as Christ has promised it, according to your own sola authority.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim1:13 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.

[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.]

Sola Scriptura, OTOH, holds all teachers (no matter what or high the “clerical” position) accountable to the written Word of God: The theopneustos Scriptures.

JL: Well then, why OTOH, does sola scriptura cause division after endless division scattering people of faith? Answer, it can be used, as the authority, for any interpretation any person, accountable to no one wants, with hit and miss truth, sounding good in many cases thereby deceiving many.

Sola scriptura, as practiced by most, not all, Protestants is a divisive tradition of men. It can hold NO one accountable, but to self. As anyone can plainly see with thousands of sola scriptura divisions and still splitting. Sola scripture can settle nothing. It’s just opinion of men and leaves everyone hanging and relying on themselves, guessing what the truth is, who’s opinion do you accept. flip a coin.

How can you justify and hold firm traditions of men, not even implied in scripture or apostolic
Tradition, such as “all Tradition is now in scripture, and sola scriptura”? Yet ignore that FELLOWSHIP, Christ has SENT, with his authority and guided by the Holy Spirit, to TEACH the WHOLE WORLD till the END, Mt28:19-21. The very pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15, as your authority plainly tells you. If the Church could teach hit and miss truth, then it would not be a pillar and ground of truth. That’s what private interpretation is, hit a miss truth, one faith groups guess is as good as the next group.

You only know the bible IS the bible, because of Apostolic Tradition, as discerned by the Church. If you were raised as a Moslem or Mormon you would have been handed down another tradition. Show me an inspired written epistle which lists what books are inspired? There is no such epistle, although the apostles could have written one had the Holy Spirit willed and inspired them, but He didn’t. Because there was no need as HE guides THE CHURCH into ALL TRUTH thru those whom HE calls to be leaders and the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) in the ONE visible body and bride of Christ the pillar and ground of TRUTH.

Here is the best definition of sola scriptura from scripture, [Jer23:36 But you must not mention 'the oracle of the LORD ’ again, because every man’s own word becomes his oracle and so you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God.]

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

 

[Michael_Vernon]

There is a straw man argument here. Yes, in one sense, the spiritual Church of Jesus Christ has always been invisible. It is the mystical Body of all true believers in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells. As a Catholic, I am not afraid to say that not all who are called Catholics hold the Apostolic Faith in creed or conduct. But the Church militant has always been visible and identifiable. There have always been groups of true believers that were organized in every city where the Gospel was preached. They met regularly in specific places under the oversight of pastors and deacons. They were not always called “catholics” nor any other name that is used today to identify a church or religion. Names came into being as groups of schismatics and heretics grew large enough to be named and distinguished from the body of believers who had to struggle to maintain the Apostolic Faith. And they began to name themselves so that they could be identified in every place where people sought to join them orb meet with them. The Church is not in a name. That is a straw man that you can knock down, but the Body of Christ will stand, and it will always be organized and identifiable. That has been true since 34 AD.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Thanks for your answer, Jon.

Why do you consider sola scripture a PRACTICE rather than a DOCTRINE ?

James White defined sola scriptura as follows;
"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "

Jon is correct.

White is simply using the term “doctrine” loosely, and his definition as such is made very clear in the sentence you quoted from him. In another post, you quoted him later as saying that it means we “embrace” and “use” Scripture as the norm.

Traditionally, historically, Sola Scriptura is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

Note that in some circles, the DOCTRINE of Scripture includes that all we need to know is including in it (vis-a-vis salvation anyway). We can debate whether such is or is not the case (I tend to embrace that such is true but hesitate to include such in the doctrine), but then we are discussing DOCTRINE, perhaps as part of the reason for the embrace of such as the norma normans, but discussing the PRAXIS of embracing Scripture is not a discussion the doctrine of Scripture, it’s a discussion of what we DO with such Scripture, how we USE such in a specific activity: norming. IMHO, it is quite enough for us to agree on what The Catholic Church itself says, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater assurance of credence exists. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished so that it says what He says.” “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is God.” AND because Scripture is simply the best candidate for this purpose since it is objective in that it is knowable by all parties and alterable by none, it is outside and above and beyond all parties in the normative process, it is regarded by all of us as reliable for this purpose (indeed, perhaps even inerrant). These two things: the doctrine of Scripture and the objective, ecumenical nature of such make it the best norma normans. In all my studies of the epistemology in the RCC, LDS and all the cults I studied (together form the corpus of those that reject Sola Scriptura), the stunning thing to me is that NONE of them had an alternative to Scripture for this purpose (better or worse)! RATHER, the rejection was because ACCOUNTABILITY is rejected (but solely, exclusvely, wholly in the singular case of self alone - all of them, every single one I studied, stresses that all OTHERS are fully accountable, right here and right now, just SELF alone is excluded; it’s ACCOUNTABILITY each objects to (for self exclusively), whatever might be the canon in the norming is moot - the problem is the norming regardless of the norma normans in such.

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

There is no such “belief.” Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine, it’s a PRAXIS (practice). It is the embrace of Scripture as the rule (“straight edge”)/ canon (“measuring stick”) or as it is called in epistemology, the norma normans (“the norm that norms”) in the norming of doctrines among us. It is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture FOR THAT PURPOSE.

This practice asssumes accountability, and THIS is why Christians disagree on this practice. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming (aka Sola Scriptura) do so NOT because they have an alternative rule/canon for the norming of their doctrines (none of them does) but because they reject the norming of their doctrines; each declares taht each exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong (in these matters anyway) and thus is right so it’s right so there. There is no need in the singular, exclusive, sole case of self alone since self alone declares that self alone cannot be wrong. Read the Catholic Catechism # 87, “On the Authority of the Church” by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie, and the epistemology of virtually every cult.

Scripture affirms accountability for teachers of doctrine. Just a very few of just NT verses on this: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14.

Whereas Jesus never once used The Catholic Church or Catholic Tradition as normative (or as anything; He never so much as even MENTIONED it - for, by or as anything), He did use Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura). Here’s just 50 examples of where Jesus uses Scripture normatively (Sola Scriptura): Matt 21:42 Matt 22:29, Matt 26:54, Matt 26:56, Matt 2:5, Matt 4:4l, Matt 4:6, Matt 4:7l, Matt 4:10, Matt 11:10, Matt 21:13, Matt 26:24, Matt 27:37, Mark 12:10, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49, Mark 15:28, Mark 1:2, Mark 7:6, Mark 9:12, Mark 9:13, Mark 11:17, Mark 14:21, Mark 14:27, Luke 4:21, Luke 24:27, Luke 24:32, Luke 24:45, Luke 2:23, Luke 3:4, Luke 4:4, Luke 4:8, Luke 4:10, Luke 4:17, Luke 7:27, Luke 10:26, Luke 18:31, Luke 19:46, Luke 20:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 22:37, Luke 23:38, Luke 24:44, Luke 24:46, John 2:22, John 5:39, John 7:38, John 7:42, John 10:35, John 13:18, John 17:12, John 19:24, John 19:36, John 19:37, John 20:9, John 2:17, John 6:31, John 6:45, John 8:17, John 10:34, John 12:14, John 12:16, John 15:25, John 19:20, John 20:30, John 20:31, John 21:25. There are more, of course, but space doesn’t permit all references.

Here are just some examples of Apostles using it, too: Acts 1:16, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11. Acts 8:24, Acts 18:28, Acts 1:29. Acts 7:42, Acts 13:29, Acts 13:33, Acts 15:15, Acts 23:5, Acts 24:14, , Acts 13:46, Romans 1:2, Romans 4:3, Romans 10:11, Romans 11:2, Romans 15:4, Romans 26:26, Romans 1:17, Romans 2:24, Romans 3:4, Romans 3:10, Romans 4:17, Romans 4:23, Romans 8:36, Romans 9:13, Romans 10:15, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:26, Romans 12:19, Romans 14:11, Romans 15:3, Romans 15:9, Romans 15:21, 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 1:19, 1 Cor 1:31, 1 Cor. 2:9, 1 Cor. 3:19 , 1 Cor. 4:6, 1 Cor. 9:9, 1 Cor. 9;10, 1 Cor. 10:7, 1 Cor. 10:10, 1 Cor. 14:22. 1 Cor. 15:45, 1 Cor. 15: 54, 2 Cor. 4:13, 2 Cor. 8:15, 2 Cor. 9:9, Gal. 3:8, Gal. 3:22, Gal. 4:30, Gal. 3:10, Gal. 3:13, Gal. 4:22, Gal. 4:27, 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, James 2:8, James 2:23, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 1:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16 There are more, of course. Space doesn’t permit all the OT examples, which are numerous.

Let’s say you and I hire Bob the Builder to build a fense on our property line, and it is to be 6 feet tall. Bob is done and claims the fense is 6 feet tall (that, then, is his position). Now, if truth doesn’t matter to you - then who cares? But if truth matters, then we care. Now Bob could just say, “I reject any accountability for my work since I alone say that I alone CANNOT do wrong and thus I don’t - just accept whatever I say with docility.” (CCC 87, etc.) and then accountability and the question of whether the fense is 6 feet tall has just been circumvented. Otherwise, the claim is subject to norming. The first issue is WHAT will serve as the rule/canon/norma normans for this norming? Perhaps you and I and Bob all agree to use a standard Sears Measuring Tape. We all have one, it’s objective, it’s knowable to us all and alterable by none of us, we all regard it as reliable for this purpose. In that case, it would be the canon (the word literally means “measuring tape”).

Thank you.

Pax

.- Josiah

 

[moondweller]

There were a number of issues that were brought to the Council, but one of the most important to Constantine was the observance of the Sabbath. Half the empire was observing Saturday, and half Sunday. This was bad for commerce, since there were two non-business days each week. He wanted them to cut it down to one.

Another was the Arian controversy. The bickering between bishops over the nature of Christ was also divisive for the Empire and bad for business. He wanted them to hammer it out.

We weren’t talking about the Council.

commissioned him for what?

You need to read the posts before you respond.

Honestly Moon! It is embarrassing to read such things. A little study of your family history will indicate that this is blatantly false.

Here is a Reformed website where you can get your misinformation corrected. Even the enemies of the Catholic Church will admit that the Church called herself Catholic from the time the book of Acts was written. You can find this reference in St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.

Not “Catholic,” but “catholic.” The moniker “Catholic” was adopted by the West, “Orthodox” by the East.

The Church was unified in East and West, and scripture describes it as BOTH Catholic and Orthodox. Why is it so difficult to accept that there was only one church?

I do accept the fact that there is only one church.

This is what you have been taught to believe, apparently based upon misinformation about history. Perhaps you can show how “men” founded the Church?

Why is the Church described as Catholic in the NT? Why did the disciples of the Apostles call the Church Catholic? Did Luke invent the Catholic Church? Did the early fathers?

The N.T. Scriptures know nothing of “The Catholic Church.” The church was called “catholic” (universal) by some early church writers, but none knew of “The Catholic Church.” Luke knew nothing of “The Catholic Church” or “The Orthodox Church,” nor did any of the early church writers. They understood the church to be “catholic” (universal, everywhere there were believers), and they formed their “orthodoxy” based on what God had revealed in the Scriptures. But the “The Catholic Church” in the West, and “The Orthodox Church” in the east came later in history, after the schism. Actually, the only moniker we find in Scripture is “the Way,” a name first adopted by Jewish believers. But it wasn’t a name that distinguished apart members of the church. The West under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, and the East under the leadership of the Bishop of Constantinople brought about these two denominations. They’re the product of men.

Though men continue to do their thing, nevertheless, Christ Himself continues to build His church (Matt. 16:18, which is truly one), to this very hour, through the Holy Spirit, calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles unto a salvation “by grace through faith” in Him, alone. As Paul says concerning this church of Christ’s:2 Tim 2:19 “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.”

 

[moondweller]

I am looking for the church founded by God, in the 1st century, as opposed to the church founded by mere men, in the 4th century, the 11th century, the 16th, 17th…or 21st century. I have a feeling I know what you are going to say…LOL…

You might try looking for the church Christ Himself is presently building (Matt. 16:18). But, alas…Jn. 3:3.

 

[Vile_Servant]

Jon is correct.

White is simply using the term “doctrine” loosely, and his definition as such is made very clear in the sentence you quoted from him. In another post, you quoted him later as saying that it means we “embrace” and “use” Scripture as the norm.

Traditionally, historically, Sola Scriptura is the PRACTICE of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon/norma normans in the evaluation of doctrines.

Note that in some circles, the DOCTRINE of Scripture includes that all we need to know is including in it (vis-a-vis salvation anyway). We can debate whether such is or is not the case (I tend to embrace that such is true but hesitate to include such in the doctrine), but then we are discussing DOCTRINE, perhaps as part of the reason for the embrace of such as the norma normans, but discussing the PRAXIS of embracing Scripture is not a discussion the doctrine of Scripture, it’s a discussion of what we DO with such Scripture, how we USE such in a specific activity: norming. IMHO, it is quite enough for us to agree on what The Catholic Church itself says, “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater assurance of credence exists. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished so that it says what He says.” “The Bible is authoritative because the Author is God.” AND because Scripture is simply the best candidate for this purpose since it is objective in that it is knowable by all parties and alterable by none, it is outside and above and beyond all parties in the normative process, it is regarded by all of us as reliable for this purpose (indeed, perhaps even inerrant). These two things: the doctrine of Scripture and the objective, ecumenical nature of such make it the best norma normans. In all my studies of the epistemology in the RCC, LDS and all the cults I studied (together form the corpus of those that reject Sola Scriptura), the stunning thing to me is that NONE of them had an alternative to Scripture for this purpose (better or worse)! RATHER, the rejection was because ACCOUNTABILITY is rejected (but solely, exclusvely, wholly in the singular case of self alone - all of them, every single one I studied, stresses that all OTHERS are fully accountable, right here and right now, just SELF alone is excluded; it’s ACCOUNTABILITY each objects to (for self exclusively), whatever might be the canon in the norming is moot - the problem is the norming regardless of the norma normans in such.

So how does one use sola scriptura to decide authoritatively which Christian denomination and theological doctrine to believe in?

For example, Calvinism and Reformed theology teaches (using sola scriptura) the doctrine of predestination, which maintains that God predestined some to eternal life, not because He saw that they would have believed on their own, but because of His own good pleasure.

Lutherans (also using sola scriptura), firmly reject the doctrine of predestination.

which one is correct?