Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[porthos11]

Just a quick response in case anyone wants to refer to 2 Thes 2:15 (“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” RSV), this is reffering to traditions, but notice, It is the SAME traditions that are taught orally AND by letter! Pay attention to the either/or portion of the verse and you will see that it is a single tradition taught in 2 different ways, both of which are valid, but the written traditions (Scripture) is still available. ** Anything above what is written is not trustworthy!**

Sorry, no go. The word in question is eite, “or”, not kai “and”. For an eite clause to be true, only one of the conditions have to be satisfied.

Unfortunately, the last sentence (bolded) is not supported by the text; in fact, the text does not have any indication whatsoever that any oral paradosis must be supported by a written one. You’re actually right, pay attention to the or clause (eite), but unfortunately we will not see what you are saying. This is an example of reading into a text what it doesn’t say.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

I am not sure Cachonga if you are being intellectually dishonest with this question or if you have a legitimate lack of knowledge…As Her standard operating procedure has always been the Church waited to “declare the Deuterocanonical books as God Breathed” purely because there was no disagreement…that is until Martin Luther came along.

The Church has long refused to issue decrees and pronouncements and what have you regarding things until a controversy arises. As such until Luther decided he couldn’t make his version of Christianity stand with an intact Deuterocanon he excised the lot of them, and would have done the same to several NT books as well.

According to beth40n2, the Bible was canonized in the 4th century (I’m guessing the reference are the councils of Hippo and Carthage, which were provincial councils. Since when does a provincial council “speak” for the entire Church? Also, how did they define the dueterocanonical books?). Why did the Church wait until the council of Trent to declare the dueterocanonical books as “God-breathed”?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

There really isn’t any. For anyone to justify Sola Scriptura, he must presuppose that the 66 (his canon) books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God. That is itself not in any of the 66 books, therefore, the presumption that the 66 books are inspired is itself a Tradition (a correct one, and one which Protestants use all the time). This in itself is contrary to Sola Scriptura (it’s no longer sola).

And in any case, even if one of the 66 books did list the inspired books, even the inspiration of that list must be established first.

Proving the inspiration of the Bible from the Bible is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.

Catholics when arguing Sola Scriptura should not push any point (i.e. “Sola Scriptura is false”; the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion) and not even concede that the Bible is inspired. The inspiration of the Bible is the first premise that must be proven, and since this is a point of dogma, must be proven using the Bible alone (which cannot be done without circular reasoning).

That is an interesting take and one I think I will start using in this argument.

 

[JRKH]

Cachonga,
You extensive post will require an extensive reply. I hope you will forgive If I miss some points or am unable to answer completely.

It seems to me that when the term “Sola Scriptura” is used, most people think only of the New Testament. Didn’t Jesus quote Scripture? Didn’t the Apostles teach from Scripture? Didn’t Paul use Scripture in his teachings? …Does this mean the New Testament is unnecessary? By no means! Even going to 2 Tim 3:14-17, and using Randy Carson’s “interpretation”, there is still the problem of 2 Thes 2:15 (the traditions Paul taught could be learned orally from him, OR by reading his letters).

I agree with this, but by the same token does any of this negate or belittle the necessity for the Church, to which Christ Himself gave authority to bind and loose? You see this is where the SS (along with private interpretation) argument fails. It is SS that elevates Scripture above Ekklesia even though the Bible teaches that each component is essential. Scripture is God breathed and Ekkleisa is Pillar and Bulwark of Truth…It is a combination.

I did notice that nobody answered my question – Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? … (I do not accept “because the Church says so” as a trustworthy answer).

This is really not an issue of citing a trustworthy source but rather one of understanding the trustworthy source in the same way.
I will offer this, though I know you will dispute it. Scripture supports all three and this has been pointed out repeatedly even if not directly.
Scripture - All Scripture is God breathed and the books of the canon were established by the Ekklesia (church) in council (magisterial authority)
Tradition - Scripture does not contain everything Jesus said and did, in addition simply reading a translation of a translation of a copy does not assure that one gets the complete lunderstanding of the original intent. For example, when was Jesus speaking literally and when was he using analogy or hyperbole etc. A good example of the confusion that can result is in the discussion of the “real presence” vs the “symbolic presence” in the Eucharist/Lords supper. Tradition relates to the deposit of faith as handed on by those trained by those trained by those trained by…Back to Christ and the Apostles.
Magisterium - Teaching Authority - Again we need only go to Scripture and read Christ’s own words. Mt 18:15-18 tells us to take obstinate issues to the Church - To “Tell it to The Church” and then to “Listen to The Church” because the Church has the authority to “bind and Loose”…“whatever”.

According to beth40n2, the Bible was canonized in the 4th century …Why did the Church wait until the council of Trent to declare the dueterocanonical books as “God-breathed”?

Regional councils (especially more than one as in this case) can present what is then later accepted by the Church universal. In this case, the findings of the regional councils were confirmed by by Pope Innocent I, confirmed again at the second council of Nicea and once again at the council of Florence in 1440, so the 73 book canon was approved by no less than 6 councils all before the reformation.
Trent only confirmed the previous canon and then close it.

Also, Peter refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). If the Apostle Peter recognizes Paul’s writings as Scripture, wouldn’t that be part of the tradition of the Church? Wouldn’t those writings be copied and passed on so other Churches could have access to those Scriptures? In fact, that is exactly what happened! And, believe it or not, nobody waited until the 4th century to start making copies!

This is quite true, and there were also copies made of many other works, purported to be “scriptural” that were not included in the canon as well as some works (like revelation) that were rejected by many but made it into the canon.
Again, it was by the Teaching authority of The Church (through the local bishops and bishops in council) as well as the Tradition of the Church that led to the ultimate decision on what ws included or excluded.

melchesidechpio and ProVobis seem to have a problem with translation and/or textual variants…

Answered above

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

JRKH has pointed out that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church to teach Scripture…However, that does not mean that the congregation has to just accept whatever the pastor tells them. They have the right…to check what they are being taught against Scriptures to be sure heresies don’t creep in

Quite True and a good observation, but what happens then when half of a congregation accepts the pastors teaching and half does not? What happens when two or more sincere Chrisitans come to differing and contraditory conclusions using the same bible and the same passages? What happens when you meet another Christian at work or whatever and in conversation discover that you believe opposing things - both “bible based”?
Believe it or not, the answer to this dillemma is contained within the Holy Scriptures and is NOT splitting the congregation into two communities who “agree to disagree”.

I would like to thank JRKH for correcting me on the point of “infallible” vs “inerrant”. As far as my use of “and” in place of “or”, first of all, I was not quoting the Scriptures, but making a point about the traditions Paul had taught. What did Paul teach? Traditions. How did he teach them? Orally and by letter. How could a person learn these traditions? Orally (directly from Paul), or by reading what he had written. Since we no longer have Paul around to teach us directly, we can still learn the traditions he taught by reading his letters. The idea that if Paul had not been delayed would have changed what was actually written is a moot point since he was delayed and we have what we have (and it is God-breathed). Perhaps if I had used “were” instead of “are” in the sentence, that may have reduced the confusion. Sorry about that!

No biggie. You’re welcome on the correction, I use to make the same mistake myself.
As to the “And/or” issue. My main concern here is that you seem to equate the totality of Paul’s teachings with what is contained in the letters. My point is simply that the Letters can be seen as a “sub-set” of teachings (written and oral). We cannot be sure what other ideas, analogies explanations etc that Paul taught orally but were never written down. I’m nost say that these would contradict the written word, but perhaps provide clarification.
This gets back into the “Tradition” issue where the direct pupils of the direct pupils or the direct pupils of Paul may have better insights into his letters than a person who never met Paul or any of his pupils.
If anything our exchanges here on CAF should demonstrate how easy it is to misunderstand each other and how often we have to explain something that we had previously written.

Peace
James

 

[EricFilmer]

<continued…>

I am curious, does EricFilmer realize that he has proven my point with his post (#20)? Where did EricFilmer get the information about “refraining from what is ignoble”? Didn’t that come from the Scriptures? The same source that Paul said was “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

No, I have not proven your point. Scripture is obviously not the only source for knowing what is and is not ignoble. Everyone has a God-given conscience don’t they? How did ancient people, who lived before the Scriptures were available, know how to refrain from what is ignoble?

Plus, Paul says to purify ourselves from what is ignoble. This is done by exercising a life of virtue while refraining from the different aspects of an ignoble life. This can be done without a necessary reliance upon “Scripture Alone.” Scripture obviously helps us to know about the nature of virtue and vice, but this does not mean that without Scripture there is no way purify our lives from what is ignoble.

2 Cor 9 is a lesson in sowing and reaping, and how God provides seed to the sower (read the entire chapter, and try reading it in different versions to see how else it’s translated).

Take your pick:
bible.cc/2_corinthians/9-8.htm

The context of sowing & reaping does not have any bearing on what I stated. Here, Paul clearly tells us that the grace of God is what provides us “always and everywhere” for what we need for “every good work.” Obviously God provides grace in many different ways, some involving Scripture and some not. To say otherwise is to say that no one ever received grace from God unless they happened to have Scripture to act as channel of God’s grace.

The point here is that when we look at the context of all Paul’s epistles, he states that there are non-Scriptural ways to be ready for every good work. Therefore, it is wrong to interpret 2Tim 3:16-17 as Paul saying that Scripture Alone is what makes a person ready for every good work. Rather, what equips us for every good work is “teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness.” In order to benefit from proper teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, Scripture is profitable, but other things are profitable as well (i.e., purifying ourselves from what is ignoble, and availing ourselves to the various ways God provides grace).

In light of all this, Paul does not teach Sola Scriptura.

 

[Sonny69]

Greetings.

Here are the references, in order, to my points from Post #23:

Point #1) The reference is the Bible itself. Sola Scriptura is not found therein.

Point #2) The reference is the Law of Non-contradiction. A proposal which inherently contradicts itself must be discarded as false.

Point #3) The reference is the official teachings of Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. Sola Scriptura does not appear in any catechism (or equivalent) of these faiths. Furthermore, an internet search of the term Sola Scriptura demonstrates that Protestants differ in how to define it and use it when formulating doctrine.

Point #4) Consider what I posted in light of this material I presented in a similar thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310282&postcount=115
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310288&postcount=116
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310292&postcount=117
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7310314&postcount=118

They used Scripture and Tradition. Plus, if I ask someone, “What exactly is Scripture?” no one can use Scripture Alone to answer the question. One has to go outside of Scripture in order to answer that question, and if the canon of Scripture is doctrinal, then there has to be some sort of authority outside of Scripture to make an official declaration as to what the canon of Scripture is.

If it has “always been in practice” then show me exactly where this practice was taught…

1. Among the Jews
2. Among the Catholics
3. Among the Orthodox Churches
4. Among the Early Church Fathers
5. In the Bible

Notice, I am not specifically asking you to cite early people using the term Sola Scriptura, but people who teach the principle of it (and who likewise reject the use of Tradition for the formulation of doctrine, and the authority of the Magisterium to officially define doctrine).

The idea that “Word of God” specifically means Scripture is a Protestant notion. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church, as well as God’s revelation which comes from both Scripture and Tradition.

If you think that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is “strongly implicit” in Scripture and can be validated by Scripture then try posting that on a Seventh Day Adventist forum or a Jehovah’s Witnesses forum and see how that pans out. They reject the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity because, in their view, it is unbiblical. For example, I have been in a number of debates with SDAs who ask over and over, “Show me in the Bible where it says the Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father.”

Furthermore, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not validated by the authority of Scripture, but rather stems from Tradition and has been officially defined by the Magisterium (in terms of the early Creeds).

Thanks, and may God bless you as well.

May I suggest that you read Psalm 119. It is the longest of the Psalms, but will speak for itself and Scripture does speak for itself as you will find out. Because that Psalm is so long, may I also suggest that you meditate and read it a few times to allow the work of God to take hold.

The simple fact is that if ther is no single authority of truth; then all becomes relative and that is the world in which we live today. You will never find a single man-made “Christian” tradition that a man does not claim is within Scripture. The word Scripture is the written, yes writen word of God. If you study its usage; you wll find that Scripture has different names, such as the “word,”. the “law and the prophets”, just as Jesus has different names such as King of Kings or Lord of Lords, or :Good Shepherd". I said this because the Scripture has, as you will notice in your study, a personality associated with it because it is “God breathed”. One example found in Hebrews is “sharper than a two-edged sword and able to pierce” or you will often see the “Scriptures says” and the like.

I see that you are kinda putting up billboards all over as though you are seeking some truth. These are really distractions, so rather than looking all over the place; why not look at Jesus? What was Jesus continually saying when He was tempted in the wilderness? “As it is written” What was HIs ultimate statement? Man shall not live on bread alone, but by…you know the rest.

What did Paul use in many of His defenses, a “word of the Lord came” or “as it is written” and the Apostle Peter you will find the same and John probably quoted the OT Scriptures more than anyone else as a % of what He wrote.

I do not allow myself to get bogged down with things outside of what God has revealed in the knowledge and love of Him through the written word. You must remember that Christianity in its purest form is a one-on-one relationship with Christ and that most of those who name his name do not have a one-to-one relationship with Jesus. How do I know this? Jesus said it was like that; He said many would follow deceitful spirits in his name. He said few that call on His name will find Him. This is why you see all of this confusion over religion and other things. Focus on your one-to-one relationship; that is where wisdom and understanding and love will resonate.

God bless you and I hope you find the truth that you are seeking in Christ and no other. S69

 

[Sonny69]

I can’t and won’t speak for Mr. Carson, but my belief in those doctrines is found in the bible.

Church built on Peter: Matthew 16: 16-119
Mary not having Children "How can this be since I know not man, she was MARRIED and still a virgin before Jesus…Luke 1:34
Catholic Priesthood, just a sampling of verses
Genesis 14:18
Psalms 109:4
Hebrews— well pretty much the whole book.

Hi RedDawg,

Thank you - Sola Scriptura. See what I mean?

All traditions have to have a singular authority of truth, which is why Scripture is used; otherwise it becomes relative… I don’t care what Christian religious umbrella one falls under. The key is does the tradition match up with the Scripture and when you can answer that, then you have come to the knowledge of the truth, which is anything that proceeds from the mouth of God and is accurately represented. That in and of itself is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the Christian. There are not that many Christians out there compared to the number of people calling themselves Christian according to Scripture and God.

God bless you. S69

 

[Sonny69]

This is a great answer and precisely true. I have seen protestants here offer different meanings for SS. It is all part of that rejection of an authoritative Church and the result is that nobody knows for sure what something means because each person can make up their own meaning…

Peace
James

Hi James,

You all missed the point; since you have no definition on which to begin a debate; you therefore have no ground rules so we see everything under the sun and the whole debate becomes nothing but confusion.

I would be careful about what I say about a fine Christian man such as RC Sproul or agree with one that would; he is one of God’s children and one of the tests of a Christian is do they love the bretheren? It is one of the strongest tests of a Christian.

May God bless you James. S69

 

[Sonny69]

Since Randy seems to be delayed in responding I will attempt, in my humble way, to address some of these issues.
Rather than try to answer each of these above, I suggest you look HERE for both Scriptural and ECF evidence for the beliefs. Secondly, I suggest looking at **the Catechism **for further clarification and source documents.

Indeed it is a firm stool, but the question a SS protestant must ask is, when different individuals come to different, and opposing, doctrines and both claim the bible and the Holy Spirit as their evidence and witness, how can the SS protestant community as a whole determine which is truly the Will of the Holy Spirit and which is from another spirit?

You are quite correct, Christ was very unhappy with the teachers of the Law and even warned that one should not seek to be a teacher since more is required of such a one. Yet look at what jesus told the Jews and the disciples about obedience to those in authority over them.
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt 23:1-3)
Here Jesus specifically seperates teaching from example. He tells the dicsiples to follow the teachings (even the “man made traditions”) but to ignore the example set by the teachers.
Note here what Jesus does NOT say. He dose not tell the people to check and see it the instructions “nullify the word of God”…He does NOT say obey only if you agree with them…He instruct obedience for the “common man” or what we would refer to as the “man in the pew”. And He gave this instruction after having denounced the Scribes and Pharisees for what they had been teaching…

And so we return to the question of determining who is truly annointed and who is not. Who truly understands and who does not?
You ask this question when you say “who is the annointing” and admit they are few in number compared to the total number of those who call themselves Christians.
Yet from a strictly protestant Sola Scriptura standpoint there is no answer, for two completely sincere Christians can (and have) reached opposing doctrines using the bible alone and the SS proestant has no way to determine, for the universal Christian community, which of the opposing views is correct and which is not.

Now from a Catholic Sola Scripture viewpoint, there is an answer because the solution is given in the pages of Scripture itself…Only the protestant Sola Scripturist cannot see it. He sees the words but does not comprehend.

Peace
James

Where does the vast majority of the Catholic catechism have its basis? Scripture. Of the little that doesn’t; such as an ecf, where did the ecf get there ideas? Scripture. We will always come full circle because indeed everyone recognizes there has to be a single ultimate truth or all else is relative.

Most people can’t see Jesus much less the true doctine of the sola’s; we know this from where? Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy Carson,

Where do your doctrines of a church being built on Peter, Mary not having children, Mary as being a perpetual virgin, the Catholic priesthood etc; where do these “traditions” come from?

The basis for all of the above can be found in scripture, my friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi RedDawg,

Thank you - Sola Scriptura. See what I mean?

All traditions have to have a singular authority of truth, which is why Scripture is used; otherwise it becomes relative… I don’t care what Christian religious umbrella one falls under. The key is does the tradition match up with the Scripture and when you can answer that, then you have come to the knowledge of the truth, which is anything that proceeds from the mouth of God and is accurately represented. That in and of itself is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the Christian. There are not that many Christians out there compared to the number of people calling themselves Christian according to Scripture and God.

God bless you. S69

Oh…I see where you’re trying to take this. Perhaps the following will help you to keep things in perspective:

Traditions Protestants Can Accept

Are there extra-biblical Church traditions that Protestants will accept? Can even one be found?

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by the Protestants to whom one is speaking
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

If any one of these three doctrines meet the criteria above, then it has been proven that Protestants have accepted teaching that has come by a source other the Bible Alone; thus, sola scriptura is false.

Condensed from:

Doctrines Known by Tradition
By James Akin
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/doctrines_known.html

Now, be honest…do you accept any of the three doctrines proposed above?

 

[Sonny69]

Here are a couple of Protestant sources for a definition of Sola Scriptura:
This Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice.(presumably including the doctrine of Sola Scriptura) - bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm. (italics mine)

D. 4. Sola Scriptura means just what it says: the bible alone! - bible.ca/sola-scriptura-start.htm. Look at D4 for the definition.

Sola Scriptura (Lat., ‘by scripture alone’). The belief that the truths of Christian faith and practice can and must be established from scripture alone (again, the belief and practice of Sola Scriptura must be included ) - encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-SolaScriptura.html

I can see we will not make any progress in discussion, but all of you will realize that most of your traditions have a single source of authority; Scripture. God bless you. S69

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can see we will not make any progress in discussion, but all of you will realize that most of your traditions have a single source of authority; Scripture. God bless you. S69

Since God is the author of both Scripture and Tradition, why would you expect there to be any significant difference?

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

[81](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/81.htm’) "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[Sonny69]

The basis for all of the above can be found in scripture, my friend.

Thank you; you just proved the point - Sola Scriptura. There has to be a single authority for truth and that authority is the Scripture. You all are Sola Scriptura’s anddon’t even realize it. Everyone - have great day and may god’s word stand forever…so be it! S69

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you; you just proved the point - Sola Scriptura. There has to be a single authority for truth and that authority is the Scripture. You all are Sola Scriptura’s anddon’t even realize it.

Hardly.

Try reading post #53.

And FWIW, the Bible points to the Church!

[1 Timothy 3:15](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Timothy+3:15&version=NIV)
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Sonny69]

Since God is the author of both Scripture and Tradition, why would you expect there to be any significant difference?

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

[81](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/81.htm’) "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

God does not author man made tradition; He is the author of truth because by His very nature He is truth and not all tradition is truth; such as the perpetual virginity of Mary as an example, which cannot be found anywhere in god’s truth; that is a man-made tradition that rest outside the truth of God’s word. That is only an example; so just take it as tha and nothig more. Again good bless everyone - sure I will see some of you around sooner or later.S69

 

[Randy_Carson]

God does not author man made tradition; He is the author of truth because by His very nature He is truth and not all tradition is truth; such as the perpetual virginity of Mary as an example, which cannot be found anywhere in god’s truth; that is a man-made tradition that rest outside the truth of God’s word. That is only an example; so just take it as tha and nothig more. Again good bless everyone - sure I will see some of you around sooner or later.S69

And the Catholic Church does not hold up “man made tradition” as doctrine, either.

If you feel otherwise, by all means, prove your case by making an argument.

But why would the perpetual virginity of Mary be “man made” (as if someone fabricated the whole thing)?

Why can’t it simply be based on what actually happened? Mary had no other children besides Jesus, and she did not have relations with Joseph.

Can you prove otherwise?

 

[RSD]

By far the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura is the fact, well known and undisputed, that the different churches who agree on that can hardly agree on anything else. In other words, once they decide that the only authority is sacred scripture, as they read it, especially the ones who agree that scripture is not meant for purely private interpretation, they can’t agree on what the interpretation IS.

It only makes sense that having given us the written word, God also gave us a guide to using the Word. Sure enough, He did! The Church.

 

[JRKH]

Where does the vast majority of the Catholic catechism have its basis? Scripture. Of the little that doesn’t; such as an ecf, where did the ecf get there ideas? Scripture. We will always come full circle because indeed everyone recognizes there has to be a single ultimate truth or all else is relative.

Most people can’t see Jesus much less the true doctine of the sola’s; we know this from where? Scripture.

Yes we do come full circle, but always comes back to the same difference of opinion that we don’t seem to be able to get over.
I will agree that, as you say, “everyone recognizes there has to be a single ultimate truth or all else is relative”. Now the question is, what is that truth and how do we achieve consensus on that Truth.
Lets examine the two models used by the Prtoestants and the Catholic/orthodox respectively and see how biblical they are.

The Protestant model, beginning with the Great reformers of the 16th century, is built upon 1) Bible Alone and 2) Spirit Guided reading by the individual Christian. Scripture is, or should be, understandable by every person because if the Holy Spirit is guiding them they will be led to the same truths. So far so Good - Great theory.
So how has it played out. Do all Protestant Christians believe the same thing based on their individual reading of the Bible? Do all Protestant Christians interpret all the bible passages the same on issues like water baptism, the real presence, predestination? Not small matters these, yet there seems to be a rather broad divergence within the protestant community on them.
Wouldn’t you think that The Holy Spirit would get everyone on the same side? I’m sure that is what Luther thought…

The Catholic/Orthodox model, beginning with teh council of Jerusalem in the 1st Century is built upon 1) Scripture and Witness testimony passed down through succession and 2) Spirit guidance of the Church community (ekklesia) as a whole as determined in council.
So how has this played out. Beginning with the Council of Jerusalem and proceeding forward, Doctrinal issues are brought up and discussed by the ekklesia, represented in large part by their bishops and, after due deliberation and prayer, the issues are settled and a single teaching promulgated. It hasn’t always been neat, and it hasn’t ever been easy, but there it is - Universal doctrinal unity for 2000 years.

Now out of this I wish to make some brief comments.

1. Sola Scriptura would be a lot easier to accept if the protestant community could get together and agree on exaclty what the Scriptures taught. Since they don’t it is evident that The Bible, by itself is insufficiently clear to be the sole authority.
2. The notion of “bible alone” was never taught by either of the ancient Churches, East or West either before or after the split.
3. The idea of doctrinal independent early church communities is nowhere to be found in the Bible and in fact the exact opposite is what is recorded.

The inescapable conclusion is that while we can say that, of the written texts available, the bible is the most important, it cannot stand alone without an authoritative body (ekklesia) to interpret, translate, copy, promulgate, defend and teach from it.

So yes, we keep coming back to Scripture, but coming back here does not reslve the problem of authority, and unity within the Church. Coming back to Scripture does not settle the matter of who is truly spirit guided in their readin and who is not when different and sincere protestnat Christians believe opposing things from each other (let alone differing from the Catholic Church).

Peace
James