How can you be sure sola scriptura is wrong

[tequilamac]

Paul also quoted a poet from Crete in his letter to Titus, should that poet’s writings be in the Bible?

Paul also quotes oral Tradition when writing his letters. In his second letter to Timothy, he refers to Jannes and Jambres, two names that don’t appear in the Old Testament: their names are matters of Jewish oral tradition, much like “Moses’ seat” that Christ Himself referred to. Paul also quotes Jesus as saying something that no gospel records Him as saying: “It is better to give than to receive.” These are solid evidences that oral tradition (both Jewish and Christian) is a significantly larger corpus than the Bible.

Luke wasn’t an apostle.

Jeremy

Apostles:

St. Peter with a key, sometimes a fish;
St. Andrew with a saltire cross;
St. James Major with a pilgrim’s staff and gourd;
St. John with a chalice;
St. Philip with a long staff surmounted with a cross;
St. James Minor with a fuller’s bat;
St. Thomas with a spear;
St. Bartholomew with a butcher’s knife;
St. Matthew with a wallet, sometimes an axe;
St. Matthias with a halbert;
St. Thaddeus, or Jude, with a carpenter’s square;
St. Simon with a saw.

 

[jemfinch]

The Council of Nicea did NOT actually make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible.

No, in fact, it wasn’t until 70 years later that that decision was made

What the councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Apostles and was already in practice in the churches all over the world.

So you’re saying that Apostles, the last of whom died in the early second century at the latest, made a decision regarding the canon of Scripture, but this decision was trasmitted orally for almost three centuries until a council wrote that decision down? Even if that were true (and even if it weren’t some grand conspiracy theory ) it would still disprove Sola Scriptura, because it would prove that oral tradition was necessary in order to canonize Scripture.

But that isn’t actually how it happened, anyway. The Canon of Scripture was determined by comparing Scriptures with the traditions already received from the Apostles, by comparing the text with “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Without oral tradition, without the unwritten teachings of the Apostles, there would be no way to verify or confirm the canonical status of a writing, and thus no way to trust it as Scripture. The standard by which writings were proclaimed to be Scripture is a standard that, by definition, must exist outside of Scripture, otherwise the whole argument for the authority and veracity of Scripture is circular.

Remember at the time of the Council of Nicea that the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did Not yet exist.

The Roman Catholic Chuch Hierarchy didn’t exist? It has existed since the early second century, at the latest: Ignatius wrote of it (bishops having presbyters and deacons below them) as he was travelling to Rome to be martyred. The whole of the Catholic Church existed significantly prior to the Council of Nicea.

It did not have that little piece of real estate yet in the Vatican until after 325 A.D.

Hah! The Vatican wasn’t officially recognized as its own country until 1929, and didn’t exist (as a City) until the Papal States in the 8th century.

It was after the Council of Nicea that the Emperor set up the Catholic Church.

The emperor didn’t set up the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church founded on Peter and the other apostles and prophets by Christ Himself. This “emperor founded the Catholic Church” theory is entirely ahistorical and generally evidence that you’ve been reading anti-Catholic sources uncritically.

and in regard to the Pseudopigraphia it was not until the Council of Trent, when the Pseudopigraphia would be treated as Holy Scripture itself.

Again, you’ve been reading way too much propoganda. False propoganda, it must be noted. First of all, the deuterocanonicals aren’t “Pseudoepigrapha” – that word has a particular meaning which doesn’t apply to any of them. They’re also not “Apocrypha” – they’re only considered to be such by Protestants. Most importantly, however, is that these books have been read in Christian worship since the beginning, more than a thousand years before the Council of Trent. They’ve always been read in liturgy. If you want proof of this fact, all you have to do is reference a fact you already know but seem not to want to apply in order to show the ridiculous of your assertion: that the Orthodox Churches, who don’t accept the Council of Trent, and who separated from the Catholic Church hundreds of years earlier, still use the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture.

In other words, 1500 years after Jesus Died (and rose again), the Roman Catholic Church decided to change which books should be included in the Bible

Only someone who refuses to look into history can honestly believe that. Perhaps you should stop unthinkingly accepting as Scripture the writings of anti-Catholics.

Jeremy

 

[JoeyWarren]

In 1 Tim. 5:17-18, Paul tells Timothy, “…for the Scripture says…” and then goes on to quote two passages, one from Deuteronomy 25, the other, NOT FROM THE O.T., but from Luke 10:7. So Paul quotes Luke and refers to it as “Scripture” alongside an OT verse. The Gospel of Luke can therefore be considered Scripture alongside the OT.

I am aware it took some time to for the Bible as we know to come about, however the writtings of the apostles were regarded as scripture long befor this.

First of all Luke had not been written yet when letters to Timothy were being written, so it is highly unlikely Paul was quoting Luke.

Second I doubt Paul would be quoting one of his own desciples.

Third you will find the same in Matt 10:11 and 1 Cor 110:27

 

[VociMike]

and in regard to the Pseudopigraphia it was not until the Council of Trent, when the Pseudopigraphia would be treated as Holy Scripture itself. In other words, 1500 years after Jesus Died (and rose again), the Roman Catholic Church decided to change which books should be included in the Bible

Are you talking about the deuterocanonicals? If so, what happened at Trent? The Church dogmatically declared the deuteros to be Scripture? That’s true. Know what else? It was only at Trent that the Church dogmatically declared the 4 Gospels, the Epistles, in fact, all the books of the bible to be Scripture. You see, there was no previous dogmatic declaration that included those books (included the Protestant canon, you could say) but left out the deuterocanonicals. Nothing happened at Trent that only applied to the deuteros.

If you disagree, show us the council which declared all the books in the Protestant canon to be scripture, but left out the deuterocanonicals.

 

[jemfinch]

The New Testament never directly quotes from any apocryphal book as Scripture with the common designation “it is written”.

And yet it still quoted them.

1. The Palestinian Jews (those who lived in Israel) never accepted the deuterocanonical books. This was the key argument for the Reformers.

And a false argument it is: it wasn’t until after the destruction of the temple that Jews rejected the deuterocanonicals. Ironically enough, they continued to celebrate Hanukkah, though

The basic idea is that if Christ did not recognize them, they are not canonical.

How do you know Christ didn’t recognize them?

Josephus (born c. 37 A.D.), a primary Jewish historian, plainly writes about the accepted canon of his day which is the same as the current Protestant canon. He makes no mention of the Apocrypha and does not hint at a canon controversy in his day (Against Apion 1.41).

Of course, Josephus being a Jews, he’d have accepted the canon determined by the Jews after the destruction of the temple; it’s no wonder that he didn’t note the “controversy” that didn’t exist in the Jewish world.

From a Protestant perspective, there are significant theological and historical inaccuracies in the deuterocanonical books

And here’s where Protestants go especially wrong. The only way that books can be judged Scripture or not is based on an outside source: the Tradition of the Apostles, handed down through the Church. A Protestant can no more say “I reject 2 Maccabees because it’s theologically inaccurate” than Luther could say “I reject James because it’s theologically inaccurate” (of course, Luther did say that, but even Protestants today would not side with him on the matter).

If you can reject a book as not being Scripture because your interpretation of another book contradicts it, there is nothing that prevents a person from doing the opposite: accepting the book you reject and rejecting the book you accept. This is why the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth: individuals cannot determine even what is Scripture without relying on it.

(e.g., works-based salvation, Tobit 12:9;

“So you see a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.” Sounds consistent to me.

cruelty, Sirach 22:3; 42:14, 2;

Cruelty? Did you actually verify these passages?

doctrine of purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:41–45).

Both Jesus and Paul affirmed the existence of Purgatory: Jesus when he said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age, or in the age to come, and Paul when revealed that a man’s works will be tested, as through fire. Purgatory was a belief of the early Church, and has always been a belief of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, though their understanding differs in a permissible manner).

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning inNineveh
instead of Babylon.

I’ve heard these exact same arguments made against books the Protestants accept; Catholics have similar answers.

The Apocrypha itself attests to the absence of prophets in its own time. 1 Macc. 9:27 “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

What does that prove?

The deuterocanonical books were in dispute for so long and held to secondary status that it would be problematic to say that they contain the voice of God since most people did not recognize them to be His voice. Jn. 10:27 “My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

First of all, your assertion is quantitatively wrong: the majority of Christians throughout history have accepted the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Even today, Catholics outnumber Orthodox and Protestants combined, and we all believe that the deuterocanonicals are Scripture.

Besides, as far as your “argument from majority rules” goes; at the time of the council of Nicea, the majority of Christians were Arians, people who didn’t believe that Christ was homoousias (consubstantial) with the Father, much like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and Oneness Pentacostals believer today; and yet this is a truth you affirm, despite the majority of Christians in the early fourth century rejecting it. How do you explain that?

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I just thought i would let you know that solo scriptura is different from sola scriptura.

Already know that, thanks, although it’s a distinction I rarely use (since whether it’s solo or sola Scriptura, it’s still wrong).

When reading the Bible the other disciples views are always looked at, so are the church fathers to put it in to context, it is the bible that comes first,

The Bible, or your interpretation of the Bible?

then we look at the church history, it is just the Bible has priority.

The Bible, or your interpretation of the Bible?

People who say “The Bible takes first priority” really mean, “My interpretation of the Bible takes first priority, and nothing can contradict it.”

Jeremy

 

[mercygate]

The Council of Nicea did NOT actually make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Apostles and was already in practice in the churches all over the world.

Remember at the time of the Council of Nicea that the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did Not yet exist. It did not have that little piece of real estate yet in the Vatican until after 325 A.D. It was after the Council of Nicea that the Emperor set up the Catholic Church.

and in regard to the Pseudopigraphia it was not until the Council of Trent, when the Pseudopigraphia would be treated as Holy Scripture itself. In other words, 1500 years after Jesus Died (and rose again), the Roman Catholic Church decided to change which books should be included in the Bible

You are right. The Council of Nicea did not decide what oboks were to be included in the Canon of Scripture. The Council of Nicea did NOT ADDRESS THE MATTER OF THE CANON.

The canon, as we know it was affirmed at two regional councils, Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 398. Both ratified by Rome. The canon of the Council of Trent reflects those councils; it is a re-iteration in the forum of an ecumenical council of what was already accepted.

The Orthodox and the Catholics share an identical canon with only small differences. Those differences do not in any way affect the substance of our mutually held doctrine, unlike the rejection of books by Protestants at the Reformation, where books were tossed out that support the doctrine of Purgatory.

 

[StRaphael]

From my blog, The Banana Republican:

Revelation 21:27 says that nothing impure shall enter Heaven. Purgatory, then, seems necessary because entire sanctification is next to impossible in this life.

Luke 23:43 can’t really mean that the thief went directly to Heaven, since Jesus was not in Heaven that day, and wasn’t there for about another 43 days.

A common misunderstanding is that Purgatory is some kind of middle destination between Heaven and Hell. Purgatory is not a second chance for salvation after physical death. Rather, it is the purification of those who are already saved and destined to be in Heaven.

I have recanted my view that 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 cannot refer to Purgatory. I consulted a kind, faithful Protestant who said that “The first passage is dealing with rewards lost or received by the Christian’s works. The fire is not referring to the person by his or her works being tried or purified in God’s refining fire. If his works are burned up (as wood, hay or stubble), “he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” It is not the loss of salvation but of reward. (This has no reference to a place of purgatory).” At first this seemed true, but then I had second thoughts. The Greek word zemiothesetai (“suffer loss”) used in this context means tha when God judges the quality of each man’s work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants denying Purgatory hold to the view that Paul is only writing award God rewarding good works because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a Purgatory. However, this view is not tenable because 1 Corinthians 3:17 proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin.

I have a cool book by Richard Bewes called “The Top 100 Questions” which I highly recommend. In the chapter on Purgatory, Bewes states that “Purgatory implies that Christ’s sacrifice is imperfect.” However, Catholics have a good response to that assertion. Dave Armstrong, in More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, states that “He has completed the work and done everything necessary in Divine Providence to efficiently save everyone who will be saved, but this work is not yet actualized or appropriated in terms of true sanctity in most of us.” Hence, the need for Purgatory as the final stage of sanctification.

---

Many other Bible verses show that Purgatory exists.

Luke 12:47-48 says that when the Master comes, some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. The Master is God. This is not Heaven, because in Heaven there is no suffering. This is also not Hell, because God is not present there.

In 2 Timothy 1:16-18, Paul prays for mercy on the deceased Onesiphorus. Paul uses “on that day” in an eschatological sense, the same way it is used in Romans 2:5,16; 1 Corinthians 1:8; 3:13; 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6,10; 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:2,4,5,8; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; and 2 Timothy 4:8. Mercy isn’t necessary in Heaven, and it doesn’t exist in Hell. Onesiphorus is being purified of his venial sins in Purgatory.

Paul talks about being baptized on behalf of the dead to atone for their sins in 1 Corinthians 15:29-30. These people weren’t in Heaven at the time because they are still with sin/impure [see Revelation 21:27], and they weren’t in Hell because there is no atoning for sins in Hell. They were in Purgatory. This verse corresponds to 2 Maccabees 12:42-46.

Thus Purgatory is indeed Biblical. The Bible includes the Deuterocanon. One of the arguments against the Apocrypha’s canonicity is that it contains the unbiblical doctrine of Purgatory, but this argument fails.

Wisdom 3:5-6 discusses the purification of souls in Purgatory. In Baruch 3:4 Baruch prays for deceased Israelis, and this is unnecessary for those already in Heaven or Hell. 2 Maccabees 12:42-46 explicitly states that prayers for the dead help free them from sin and get to Heaven . People in Heaven are sinless and people in Hell cannot be freed from sin. In Jude 1:23 people are being released from the fires of Purgatory because those in Heaven are already fully purified and those in Hell can’t be saved.

 

[estesbob]

I posted this in another forum.
Ps. 119
This Psalm is an acclamation of the Scriptures, made up of 176 verses (longest chapter in the Bible) mentioning the Word of God 178 times using 10 different synonyms. The Scriptures are presented as being totally sufficient for the follower of God in all matters pertaining to instruction, training, and correction. It is significant that though Scripture is mentioned 178 times, the concept of unwritten Tradition is never mentioned once. In fact, there is no acclamation of or meditation on unwritten Tradition in such a way anywhere in Scripture.
.”

So does this mean we must ignore all scripture written after Pslam 119??? It would appear so since you claim this Psalm affirms sola scriptura.

 

[scylla]

If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.

The first part of your post is not a valid arguement against the Catholic Church as it believes that we should be one also and the Orthodox reject the Catholic Church at this time.
So that means someone rejecting unity does not disprove the unity of the group. It just shows that some can reject the unity expressed by one group.

I believe there should be only one Church and since Jesus founded only one Church we should look for that one Church.
That is one reason I am Catholic.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Montalban]

If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.

The easiest way is to read the last verse of the last chapter of the Gospel of John which shows scripture doesn’t cover all that Jesus said or did.

 

[runandsew]

The Council of Nicea did NOT actually make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Apostles and was already in practice in the churches all over the world.

Remember at the time of the Council of Nicea that the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did Not yet exist. It did not have that little piece of real estate yet in the Vatican until after 325 A.D. It was after the Council of Nicea that the Emperor set up the Catholic Church.
and in regard to the Pseudopigraphia it was not until the Council of Trent, when the Pseudopigraphia would be treated as Holy Scripture itself. In other words, 1500 years after Jesus Died (and rose again), the Roman Catholic Church decided to change which books should be included in the Bible

On this statement about the Catholic Church Hierarchy not yet existing, ummm…
Someone should have told St. Irenaeus when he wrote his writings “Against Heresies” around 180 to 190 AD.
He writes about the Church of Rome, " The greatest and most ancient Church know to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition". St. Irenaeus mentions St. Clement ( 4th Pope) sending a strong letter to another Church, “In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith.”
St. Irenaeus then lists the first 13 Popes all succeeding each other, from Peter to Eleutherus who was Pope at the time of the writing.
If this is not the Roman Church Hierarchy, then I don’t know what would be. This was written 135 years before the council of Nicea.
Real estate does not a Church make.

 

[Montalban]

On this statement about the Catholic Church Hierarchy not yet existing, ummm…
Someone should have told St. Irenaeus when he wrote his writings “Against Heresies” around 180 to 190 AD.
He writes about the Church of Rome, " The greatest and most ancient Church know to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition". St. Irenaeus mentions St. Clement ( 4th Pope) sending a strong letter to another Church, “In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith.”
St. Irenaeus then lists the first 13 Popes all succeeding each other, from Peter to Eleutherus who was Pope at the time of the writing.
If this is not the Roman Church Hierarchy, then I don’t know what would be. This was written 135 years before the council of Nicea.

You need to do a wee bit more research.

The quote by Irenaeus of Lyons at the CCEL site has this interesting footnote…

The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn73.htm#P7320_1946616

Real estate does not a Church make.

Yet Constantinople was referred to as “New Rome”

 

[Blinky]

The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.

That’s some good stuff. Really shows the primacy of Rome. Thanks.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I am saying if sola scriptura is wrong, because it has only caused division and this is the proof of why, then the catholic and orthodox church must also be wrong, because they seperated, so you could argue the church has split several times if you were to include protestants, the catholic church must not be from God because of all the division.And i did not say it was in the Bible at that time, i said that the gospels were seen as scripture before the Bible was put together.

I just want a better argument than this, it can not be wrong just because of the division.

Welcome to the forum! I’m glad you decided to celebrate my birthday by joining.
The reason I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura is because the Bible does not plainly state that ONLY the Bible contains the Word of God, and because the Bible itself does not even contain a list of what is Scripture and what is not.
You pointed out that Psalm 119 refers to the Word of God. What makes you so sure that the Word of God means the Bible? When the prophets were given the Word of God, they spoke it to the people orally. Was it considered the Word of God then, or only after it was written down?
Also, you point out that the New Testament does not quote the Dueterocanicals. The New Testament does not quote from Ecclesiastes or from Esther either, yet most Protestants consider that Scripture.
You seem to argue that because Sirach contains cruelty, it cannot be considered Scripture. How then do you justify many of the commands of the Old Testament to wipe out the Canaanites, even the innocent children? Essentially, this is a command to commit genocide.
Anyway, once again, welcome to the forum! Try not to let it control your life though. It can happen. I myself suffered horrible withdrawl symptoms during the forum crash.

 

[runandsew]

You need to do a wee bit more research.

The quote by Irenaeus of Lyons at the CCEL site has this interesting footnote…

The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/footnote/fn73.htm#P7320_1946616

Yet Constantinople was referred to as “New Rome”

Thanks for your reply, but I’m not too bright, can you summarize that in simple terms for me, I have no clue what that footnote is talking about.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Just a little reminder, folks. We’re talking about sola scriptura here, not the Catholic versus Orthodox view of Roman primacy. I’m sure there are any number of threads in the Eastern Christianity forum where this would fit just fine. As both the Catholics and Orthodox do not believe in sola scriptura, this thread would be a fine time for them to stand together. As the two great Churches stand together on more and more issues, it will be easier to come to agreement about the issues that currently separate them. Let us be one, as Christ prayed.

God bless!

 

[runandsew]

You are right, I am sorry for offending my Orthodox brothers and sisters with my earlier comment, I didn’t realize what I had written until the follow up post,
My point was that the Church had the authority to determine which books to include in the canon long before the council of Nicea. So if you believe 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 is an inspired passage proving sola scriptura, then how do you know that 2 Timothy and that particular scripture passage are inspired. You look outside the Bible for that authority, which in this case is the teaching of the Church.

 

[kleary]

If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.

Sola Scriptura is not truthful for the reason of division, but for pure historical fact.

Sola Scriptura teaches, “All revealed truth is contained in Scripture alone”

The names of the books of Scripture is Divine Revelation, a revealed truth from God that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

Ken