I have no personal interpeation. My reading of Scripture is all through the lenses of the 2,000 years of teachings and traditions of the Church Jesus founded.Now the doctrine does not say that everything is equally as clear but the necessary things are clear. As for whose interpretation of what the plaining meaning is, if the Church gives you an interpreation, do you not still have to interpret what that interpretation means? You eventually must interpret something for yourself.
It didnt-it was laid out the day Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. You are mistaken about infallibility-it is not just Papal infallibtiy- it is the infallibity of the Magestriun throughout the ages on matters of Faith and Morals.I could well say why did it take 1800 years to give the doctrine of papal infallibility? If you refer to the church fathers, I think that they more clearly set out scripture alone than papal infallibility.
Yes it was my reading of scripture. I believed the essence of scripture alone before I ever actually heard of the term or the doctrine, or knew that there was any dispute over it.SyCarl, I appreciate the sincerity with which you hold this belief, but what you’ve stated is practically impossible. Nobody comes to sacred scripture free of biases, and you’re no exception.
It would be more honest if you were to say, “a reading of scripture informed by my faith background, personal study and life experience.”
The Catholic Gospel doesn’t teach - the three comings of Christ , and pre-tribunational rapture - but believe in the second coming of Christ.So what specific teachings from Christ do Catholics follow that are not contained in scripture?
I would refer you to the quotes given in posts 23 and 24. There are more, but I picked those I thought were clearest.It didnt-it was laid out the day Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. You are mistaken about infallibility-it is not just Papal infallibtiy- it is the infallibity of the Magestriun throughout the ages on matters of Faith and Morals.
You keep sayig that the Church Fathers supported Sola Sciptura yet have povided nothng to back it up. In fact the only defense of Sola Scriptura you have given us indeed written over 1,500 years after Jesus founded the Church
Yes it was my reading of scripture. I believed the essence of scripture alone before I ever actually heard of the term or the doctrine, or knew that there was any dispute over it.
I believe that I was guided by the Holy Spirit. If it is you do not agree with the doctrine I can respect that. What I find annoying are people who try to ridicule it pr assert that it was never articulated at all before the Reformation.
As for the meaning of John 6, perhaps I can quote what Augustine said on the subject.Based on who’s interpertation of what the plain meaning is?
For instance what is the "Plain Meaniing of John 6:35-66
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
- If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
Neither of the quotes said one word about Sola Scriptura. Both talked of the importance of Scriptue-no one is disputing it.I would refer you to the quotes given in posts 23 and 24. There are more, but I picked those I thought were clearest.
Now how do you know that is what the Magisterium means when it says that? Don’t you have to interpret what they say?
SyCarl, thanks for the honesty. But, if it is your reading of scripture, then the post to which I responded isn’t entirely accurate.Yes it was my reading of scripture. I believed the essence of scripture alone before I ever actually heard of the term or the doctrine, or knew that there was any dispute over it.
I believe that I was guided by the Holy Spirit. If it is you do not agree with the doctrine I can respect that. What I find annoying are people who try to ridicule it pr assert that it was never articulated at all before the Reformation.
Just to take a portion from the Augustine quoteNeither of the quotes said one word about Sola Scriptura. Both talked of the importance of Scriptue-no one is disputing it.
Why would have to interpert what they say? When the Magestrium, for instance, declared the very unscriptural interpertation that the Trinity existed how do I interpet that any other way than the trinity exists?
I know what they say is correct becuase Jesus promised us they would.
That to me looks very much like what is in the Westminster Confession.For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture
Sola scriptura doesn’t deny that the original teachings were not transmitted orally at first. What is does say is that the teachings were then wriiten down. Scripture contains the teachings. As per the Westminster Confession:SyCarl, thanks for the honesty. But, if it is your reading of scripture, then the post to which I responded isn’t entirely accurate.
You also say that you believe you were guided by the Holy Spirit. How do you know that? How do you know that those with whom you disagree haven’t been guided into their interpretations by the Holy Spirit?
Whether it was articulated before the Reformation is quite beside the point. What really matters is whether the doctrine of sola scriptura was taught by the apostles (impossible - there was no complete canon of scripture, outside of the Old Testament, in the earliest times of Church history).
Forgive me if someone else has already said this, but how could the doctrine of sola scriptura be true when the earliest Christians didn’t have Bibles (with New Testament canons identical to ours) to read? Does that mean that it was impossible to be ‘saved’ until the canon of scripture was completed in the late 4th century?
Irenaeus says something similarI. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith…
Kinda like those who subscribe to Sola Fidelis. The will pull out every quote in the New Testament where faith is mentioned as necessary and proclaim SEE_SCRPITURE BACKS ME UP. Of course they always fail to note, as you do with your Scripture quotes, that “alone” is never used. It was wasnt used by Augustine in his comments on Scripture-it wasnt used at all until relatively recent times.Just to take a portion from the Augustine quote
That to me looks very much like what is in the Westminster Confession.
But sola scriptura has precious little to offer in the way of settling disputes over differing interpretations of those scriptures.Sola scriptura doesn’t deny that the original teachings were not transmitted orally at first. What is does say is that the teachings were then wriiten down. Scripture contains the teachings.
I do not site the church fathers for the truth of their statements. They were fallible. I cite them for the purpose of showing the ideas are not new.Kinda like those who subscribe to Sola Fidelis. The will pull out every quote in the New Testament where faith is mentioned as necessary and proclaim SEE_SCRPITURE BACKS ME UP. Of course they always fail to note, as you do with your Scripture quotes, that “alone” is never used. It was wasnt used by Augustine in his comments on Scripture-it wasnt used at all until relatively recent times.
BTW-Augustine was a Bishop of the Catholic Church and believed that the Church was indeed the one True Church . Are we to believe yo embrace all the teachings of Augustine or just the out of context comments you post here that you mistakenly believe support you case?
I could as well ask how you accept the authority of the Church without using scripture, since scripture cannot be used until it has already been infallibly determined.But sola scriptura has precious little to offer in the way of settling disputes over differing interpretations of those scriptures.
Is it true, then, that sola scriptura became binding only after the canon of scripture had been completed?
If so, how is it that you accept the authority of scripture without accepting the authority of the body that decided upon what constituted scripture?
I do not deny that the early fathers, even the ones I quoted may in other places say different things. It does not change the fact that they also said what I quoted.sigh Now I have go dust off my books on the early fathers. I note with sadness that just as with Scripture, the tendency to cherry pick quotations from the likes of Iraneus.
I did not quote Augustine out of context. He was telling his readers how to tell when scripture was literal and when it was figurative. He chose John 6 as an example of when what was being said was figurative. That is regardless of what else he may have said on the Eucharist.Augustine did not refer what was properly real (res) in the Blessed Sacrament to the Flesh of Christ (caro), but transferred it to the quickening principle (spiritus), i.e. to the effects produced by a worthy Communion. A logical consequence of this was that he allowed to caro, as the vehicle and antitype of res, not indeed a mere symbolical worth, but at best a transitory, intermediary, and subordinate worth (signum), and placed the Flesh and Blood of Christ, present under the appearances (figuræ) of bread and wine, in too decided an opposition to His natural, historical Body. Since Augustine was a strenuous defender of personal co-operation and effort in the work of salvation and an enemy to mere mechanical activity and superstitious routine, he omitted insisting upon a lively faith in the real personality of Jesus in the Eucharist, and called attention to the spiritual efficiency of the Flesh of Christ instead. His mental vision was fixed, not so much upon the saving caro, as upon the spiritus, which alone possessed worth. Nevertheless a turning-point occurred in his life. The conflict with Pelagianism and the diligent perusal of Chrysostom freed him from the bondage of Platonism, and he thenceforth attached to caro a separate, individual value independent of that of spiritus, going so far, in fact, as to maintain too strongly that the Communion of children was absolutely necessary to salvation.