Info on SDA

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, it’s not a lie. Ellen Gould White claimed to have a vision about it and here’s a cut-and-paste of what she wrote (the poor grammar is her own):

“I saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God’s Sabbath, and keep the Pope’s and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image.”

This was a prophetic vision. It told of things in the future. No one has the mark of the beast yet.

 

[greggy53]

This was a prophetic vision. It told of things in the future. No one has the mark of the beast yet.

Not one of her so called phrophesies ever came true…why would this one?
Remember the test of a a phrophet?

 

[me_again]

Ellen White did not say that those who worship on Sunday have recieved the mark of the beast. That’s a lie fabricated by me again.
me again;6869580:

Richard, it’s not a lie. Ellen Gould White claimed to have a vision about it and here’s a cut-and-paste of what she wrote (the poor grammar is her own):

“I saw all that ‘would not receive the mark of the Beast, and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,’ could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope’s, and not God’s Sabbath. And all we were required to do, was to give up God’s Sabbath, and keep the Pope’s and then we should have the mark of the Beast, and of his Image.”

You can read more about Ellen White’s loony visions and her loony writings here:
whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc18.html

This was a prophetic vision. It told of things in the future. No one has the mark of the beast yet.

Richard, your mincing words. Thank goodness that Ellen White’s own writing was cut-and-pasted here to prove that it’s not a lie e.g. Ellen White wrote that the “Mark of the Beast” encompasses those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.

Richard, it’s hard to fight against the pricks, isn’t it? You’ve committed your life to following a dead false prophet named Ellen Gould White.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Not one of her so called phrophesies ever came true…why would this one?
Remember the test of a a phrophet?

This is not only her prophecy, it’s in the bible.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, your mincing words. Thank goodness that Ellen White’s own writing was cut-and-pasted here to prove that it’s not a lie e.g. Ellen White wrote that the “Mark of the Beast” encompasses those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.

You said
Originally Posted by me again
Because in your SDA sect, Ellen White said that those who worship on Sunday have received the Mark of the Beast. And since you believe Ellen White’s words, you are bound to obey her.

Ellen White does not in this post or anywhere state that anyone has recieved the mark of the beast. This is a lie. It may not have been intentional, but untrue non the less and therefore a lie. No one has recieved the mark of the beast, yet.

Richard, it’s hard to fight against the pricks, isn’t it?

What pricks would those be me.

You’ve committed your life to following a dead false prophet named Ellen Gould White.

My life is committed to following Jesus. Who are you following me?

 

[Eklecktika]

Having read through nearly the whole thread, forgive me for jumping in here without finishing. I see a missing point.

I think it’s accurate to say the assertions of the Adventists are based on sola scriptura, and then, on Ms. White’s statements. Can we agree on that?

The first thing that any person who insists that sola scriptura is the proper base of Christianity ought to be able to prove is the obvious, and that needs must be settled before going any further, as it’s the crux of the matter.

If that doctrine is central to Christianity, and all Christian truth is contained in the books of the Bible LESS the Septuagint, then:

**Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the SOLE source of revelation? **

Surely such an important doctrine would be contained therein, would it not? Remember, profitable does NOT equate to “sole”. I eagerly await your response.

How does Sola Scriptura reconcile with John 16:4 and the surrounding text?
Surely if Christ had meant all these things that are WRITTEN He would have said so. How about the multitude of verses repeating the command to ‘go forth and preach’?

If Christ taught Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he have said 'Go forth and distribute the Bible, that they may read the Word of God?"

Or are you saying that Christ didn’t mean what He said?
How did the first Christians, before the Bible was even finalized, keep track of what was to be taught, and what was to be ignored?

How about Mark 16:15? How about John 20:30? I’d especially like to hear your explanation of John 20:30. 2 Thesselonians would also like an explanation-2:14, 15; 3:6.

I have many more verses as well-but I think that will suffice for a first round.

How, if the Bible is the sole source of Christian Truth, did Christians before the printing press maintain their faith?

Or did the evil, demonic Catholic Church (cue music) suppress the invention of the printing press too?

 

[greggy53]

This is not only her prophecy, it’s in the bible.

Where does it say in the Bible that people who worship on Sunday have the mark of the beast???

 

[CatholicLover]

Having read through nearly the whole thread, forgive me for jumping in here without finishing. I see a missing point.

I think it’s accurate to say the assertions of the Adventists are based on sola scriptura, and then, on Ms. White’s statements. Can we agree on that?

The first thing that any person who insists that sola scriptura is the proper base of Christianity ought to be able to prove is the obvious, and that needs must be settled before going any further, as it’s the crux of the matter.

If that doctrine is central to Christianity, and all Christian truth is contained in the books of the Bible LESS the Septuagint, then:

**Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the SOLE source of revelation? **

Surely such an important doctrine would be contained therein, would it not? Remember, profitable does NOT equate to “sole”. I eagerly await your response.

How does Sola Scriptura reconcile with John 16:4 and the surrounding text?
Surely if Christ had meant all these things that are WRITTEN He would have said so. How about the multitude of verses repeating the command to ‘go forth and preach’?

If Christ taught Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he have said 'Go forth and distribute the Bible, that they may read the Word of God?"

Or are you saying that Christ didn’t mean what He said?
How did the first Christians, before the Bible was even finalized, keep track of what was to be taught, and what was to be ignored?

How about Mark 16:15? How about John 20:30? I’d especially like to hear your explanation of John 20:30. 2 Thesselonians would also like an explanation-2:14, 15; 3:6.

I have many more verses as well-but I think that will suffice for a first round.

How, if the Bible is the sole source of Christian Truth, did Christians before the printing press maintain their faith?

Or did the evil, demonic Catholic Church (cue music) suppress the invention of the printing press too?

Finally the heart of the matter!

It will take me a bit of time to look up and comment on all the scriptures you quote but let me leave a couple quotes of my own showing that the early Church did indeed hold to the belief of sola Scriptura.

From Iranaeus in the late 2nd Century:

“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.”

From Cyril of Jerusalem mid 4th Century:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

 

[MarysRoses]

Finally the heart of the matter!

It will take me a bit of time to look up and comment on all the scriptures you quote but let me leave a couple quotes of my own showing that the early Church did indeed hold to the belief of sola Scriptura.

From Iranaeus in the late 2nd Century:

“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.”

From Cyril of Jerusalem mid 4th Century:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

Scripture is sacred and vital to Christian faith… however, it is not ONLY scripture, as the quotes you furnished yourself show;

“We have learned 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.”

They learned by word of mouth, and by scripture, that is not “SOLA” scripture.

Who preserved and created the collections of scriptures that became your bible? What authority did they have to choose among the hundreds of writings circulating to pick the 27 that became our New Testament?

And by the way, if you used the same bible as St. Iraneus and St. Cyril, you’d never be able to arrive at the SDA doctrine of soul sleep, or any number of other erroneous teachings, as they used the complete Septuagint, including the aprocrypha. They also had no New Testament, the NT books were circulating, but so were many others.

 

[Eklecktika]

Finally the heart of the matter!

It will take me a bit of time to look up and comment on all the scriptures you quote but let me leave a couple quotes of my own showing that the early Church did indeed hold to the belief of sola Scriptura.

From Iranaeus in the late 2nd Century:

“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.”

From Cyril of Jerusalem mid 4th Century:

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

:tiphat:

But there is no book of Cyril or book of Iraneus in the Bible! As the writings of the Church Fathers hold no weight outside the CC regarding baptism of infants, the Eucharist, the Mass, the worthiness of Sacred Tradition, and so forth, neither do they work for Sola Scriptura.

But since you brought up writings of the early Fathers on the subject:

Iraneus also stated:

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."

And finally, Augustine:

"But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly,** if,** when attention is given to the passage,** it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church** and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things."On Christian Doctrine

Athenaseus stated:

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept."Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis

And just a reminder:

How does Sola Scriptura reconcile with John 16:4 and the surrounding text?
Surely if Christ had meant all these things that are WRITTEN He would have said so. How about the multitude of verses repeating the command to ‘go forth and preach’?

If Christ taught Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he have said 'Go forth and distribute the Bible, that they may read the Word of God?"

Or are you saying that Christ didn’t mean what He said?
How did the first Christians, before the Bible was even finalized, keep track of what was to be taught, and what was to be ignored?

How about Mark 16:15?

How about John 20:30? I’d especially like to hear your explanation of John 20:30

2 Thesselonians would also like an explanation-2:14, 15; 3:6.

How, if the Bible is the sole source of Christian Truth, did Christians before the printing press maintain their faith?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

You should add that official Catholic belief is what Jesus and the Apostles taught without changes, additions or subtractions.

Ooooh no, no, no, no now. I thought we had sort of settled on the idea that the early church “fathers” in Rome had, in fact, made changes to what “Christ and the apostles taught.” I recall reading one of your responses on the subject of when Shabbat was changed by the then what was called “the Bishop of Rome,” one of three patriarchates of the then fledgling Christian Synagogue (in later transliterations, from the German, “Kierche,” into “Church,”).

You mentioned, as had I just before your response, that “the persecutions” in Rome had become so fierce, and the fact that the non-Christian Jews had thrown Christian Jews, and the Goyim converts to Judeo-Christianity, out of the synagogues becaue they would not join the Jews in fighting against the Roman pagans, that Sunday observance had begun “as early as AD 225.” This was long after Jesus was crucified, and the apostles had been martyred by pagans for their following the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, including Matthew 23 where Jesus said, “When the teachers sit in Moses’ bench in the synagogues and teach, listen to them, but do not do as they do. For, they say but do not do. But, when they sit in Moses’s seat, listen to them and DO what they say.”

They, while seated there in the synagogues, could only read from the Law that He, the pre-incarnate Christ, had given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Jesus was defending the Law He gave to Moses to give to the people of Israel to give to the world. Thus, they did not do as He had commanded them, and He then, while here on earth, was doing what Israel had not done. The Testator, once crucified without changing His own words, had thus immortalized them. He then grafted all who were willing to be taught what He had taught the disciples, into the Olive Tree,Y’Israel.

PAX, wooops. I did it again. I forgot to start my response below your name. Sorry.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Eklecktika]

Ooooh no, no, no, no now. **I thought we had sort of settled on the idea that the early church “fathers” in Rome had, in fact, made changes to what “Christ and the apostles taught.” **I recall reading one of your responses on the subject of when Shabbat was changed by the then what was called “the Bishop of Rome,” one of three patriarchates of the then fledgling Christian Synagogue (in later transliterations, from the German, “Kierche,” into “Church,”).

Having finished the thread, I see no place where that was agreed upon. Assumed and asserted, perhaps, but not agreed upon. I’m curious which tenets of Christianity were altered by the CF, and what Christ actually taught. And where that information may be found.

If I missed it, would you be so kind as to direct me to the page(s) upon which I could find the agreement?

 

[CatholicLover]

Scripture is sacred and vital to Christian faith… however, it is not ONLY scripture, as the quotes you furnished yourself show;

“We have learned 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.”

They learned by word of mouth, and by scripture, that is not “SOLA” scripture.

Who preserved and created the collections of scriptures that became your bible? What authority did they have to choose among the hundreds of writings circulating to pick the 27 that became our New Testament?

And by the way, if you used the same bible as St. Iraneus and St. Cyril, you’d never be able to arrive at the SDA doctrine of soul sleep, or any number of other erroneous teachings, as they used the complete Septuagint, including the aprocrypha. They also had no New Testament, the NT books were circulating, but so were many others.

The quotes I furnished show that it wasn’t the intent of those early Church fathers that anything they said should change what was contained in the Scriptures. We can debate what was or wasn’t contained in those Scriptures but it seems clear that they were the basis of their faith. So if they believed the Scripture should take precedence over their own words isn’t that sola Scriptura without the fancy name?

 

[CatholicLover]

:tiphat:

But there is no book of Cyril or book of Iraneus in the Bible! As the writings of the Church Fathers hold no weight outside the CC regarding baptism of infants, the Eucharist, the Mass, the worthiness of Sacred Tradition, and so forth, neither do they work for Sola Scriptura.
:

You’re expecting me to prove from the Bible that the Catholic Church’s writings should not be placed on equal footing with the Bible? The onus should be on the Catholic Church to prove the opposite since there were no traditions beyond what was included in the Scriptures at the time they were written. My guess is that is what you believe the texts you provided earlier prove. I’ll sit down in a little bit and try to address them.

 

[CatholicLover]

I think it’s accurate to say the assertions of the Adventists are based on sola scriptura, and then, on Ms. White’s statements. Can we agree on that?

I think we can agree on that with the further distinction that we believe the Bible takes precedence over Ellen White.

The first thing that any person who insists that sola scriptura is the proper base of Christianity ought to be able to prove is the obvious, and that needs must be settled before going any further, as it’s the crux of the matter.

If that doctrine is central to Christianity, and all Christian truth is contained in the books of the Bible LESS the Septuagint, then:

**Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the SOLE source of revelation? **

Surely such an important doctrine would be contained therein, would it not? Remember, profitable does NOT equate to “sole”. I eagerly await your response.

As I stated in a previous post, I believe the onus should be on the Catholic Church to prove the opposite.

How does Sola Scriptura reconcile with John 16:4 and the surrounding text?

I don’t see anything here that does not reconcile with sola Scriptura. Why don’t you tell me why you think this makes a difference.

How about the multitude of verses repeating the command to ‘go forth and preach’?

How does the command to ‘go forth and preach’ conflict with sola Scriptura?

If Christ taught Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he have said 'Go forth and distribute the Bible, that they may read the Word of God?"

Are you suggesting that if we want to be consistant in our belief in sola Scriptura we should just place a Bible in the front of the Church and come read it every Sabbath? It doesn’t have to be one or the other. When Jesus commanded us to “go forth and preach” he was telling us to preach His Word.

Or are you saying that Christ didn’t mean what He said?

No, I’m not saying that.

How did the first Christians, before the Bible was even finalized, keep track of what was to be taught, and what was to be ignored?

The Epistles and Acts were written very early by the Apostles Paul and Luke followed shortly by the Gospels. So within a short period of time the writings that make the New Testament were already circulating. They can be tied directly to Jesus’ desciples and the only reliable source of the teachings of Jesus.

How about Mark 16:15? How about John 20:30? I’d especially like to hear your explanation of John 20:30. 2 Thesselonians would also like an explanation-2:14, 15; 3:6.

Mark 16:15 - “preach the Gospel” - The Gospel is written and included in the Bible.

John 20:30 - Who knows what the signs are “which are not recorded in this book”? The book referred to is certainly not the New Testament as it had not been compiled yet. It is most likely referring to the Gospel of John itself and does not necessarily mean that something essential for our salvation was not included in the Bible. At any rate in verse 31 we are told that the purpose of John’s gospel is that “you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah”. If the other signs were important beyond what had already been presented they would have also been included.

 

[Eklecktika]

No, that’s not what I’m asking at all.

I’m asking SOMEONE-anyone-to prove, from the bible, that the sola scriptura is the proper basis of faith.

If it needs must be in the bible to be considered ‘from God and not of man’ for all catholic tradition, then for the sake of consistency, SS should be proven from the bible as well.

I said:

The first thing that any person who insists that sola scriptura is the proper base of Christianity ought to be able to prove is the obvious, and that needs must be settled before going any further, as it’s the crux of the matter.

If that doctrine is central to Christianity, and all Christian truth is contained in the books of the Bible LESS the Septuagint, then:

Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the SOLE source of revelation?

Surely such an important doctrine would be contained therein, would it not? Remember, profitable does NOT equate to “sole”. I eagerly await your response.

I have posed that question to members of the Southern Baptist Association (a preacher and his wife, my former in laws), members of the Nazerene, Methodist, and Assembly of God churches, and have yet to receive an answer from any.

To your credit, CL, you have given me more than any of the above put together.

That said, however, quoting Iraneus, who said, in addition to what previously quoted,

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.** Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, **so that by following those things already mentioned, **proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. **It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."

In other words, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase,

*Those who desert the preaching of the Church call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters-priests-not taking into consideration how much greater consequence a religious man has, even in private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. *

Now, since Iranaeus died approx 202 AD, he’d probably have used this as the definition-which comes from Plato-

a sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a category of teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric for the purpose of teaching aretê — excellence, or virtue — predominately to young statesmen and nobility. The practice of charging money for education, and providing wisdom only to those who can pay, led to the condemnations made by Plato in regard to their profession itself being ‘specious’ or ‘deceptive’, hence the modern usage of the term.
**
The term sophism originated from Greek σόφισμα, sophisma, from σοφίζω, sophizo “I am wise”; confer σοφιστής, sophistēs, meaning “wise-ist, one who does wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom” and σοφός, sophós means “wise man”.**

In the context given, I don’t believe it was a compliment. Continuing on:

*Now, such are all the heretics and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more than the truth so that by following those things already mentioned (as I understand it-the teachings of the ‘blasphemous and impudent sophist’ and the ‘something more beyond the truth’) proceeding on their way not always keeping to the same opinions with regard to the same things (inconsistency in interpretation and application), as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to to flee to the Church and be brought up in her bosom and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.
*

Is that not speaking against personal interpretation of the Bible? Isn’t that saying that there are findings in the Church protective from heresy, IN ADDITION to the Scriptures? Through as objective lens as I can muster, that appears to be VERY consistent with the Catholic position on the subject.

Thoughts?

 

[CatholicLover]

I’m asking SOMEONE-anyone-to prove, from the bible, that the sola scriptura is the proper basis of faith.

If it needs must be in the bible to be considered ‘from God and not of man’ for all catholic tradition, then for the sake of consistency, SS should be proven from the bible as well.

Isn’t that like giving someone a dictionary and asking them to prove from the dictionary that it contains the entirety of the English language?

Jesus’ teachings were written by the people who knew him and his teachings best very soon after his death. They show the belief of Christians closest to Christ. It’s up to the Catholic Church to show that those writing are incomplete since they are the ones making the charge.

That said, however, quoting Iraneus, who said, in addition to what previously quoted,

In other words, if I may be so bold as to paraphrase,

*Those who desert the preaching of the Church call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters-priests-not taking into consideration how much greater consequence a religious man has, even in private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. *

Now, since Iranaeus died approx 202 AD, he’d probably have used this as the definition-which comes from Plato- In the context given, I don’t believe it was a compliment. Continuing on:

*Now, such are all the heretics and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more than the truth so that by following those things already mentioned (as I understand it-the teachings of the ‘blasphemous and impudent sophist’ and the ‘something more beyond the truth’) proceeding on their way not always keeping to the same opinions with regard to the same things (inconsistency in interpretation and application), as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to to flee to the Church and be brought up in her bosom and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.
*

Is that not speaking against personal interpretation of the Bible? Isn’t that saying that there are findings in the Church protective from heresy, IN ADDITION to the Scriptures? Through as objective lens as I can muster, that appears to be VERY consistent with the Catholic position on the subject.

Thoughts?

Whether Iraneus was correct is a matter for another discussion. My only reason for quoting him was to show that he held the Scripture above everything else as did Cyril of Jerusalem and I’m sure others alive at that time.

 

[Eklecktika]

So he was correct when you quoted him, but possibly incorrect when I do? :ehh:

Isn’t that like giving someone a dictionary and asking them to prove from the dictionary that it contains the entirety of the English language?

Jesus’ teachings were written by the people who knew him and his teachings best very soon after his death. They show the belief of Christians closest to Christ. It’s up to the Catholic Church to show that those writing are incomplete since they are the ones making the charge.

Nope. It’s like asking someone to prove a prominent tenet of faith from the SOURCE of that faith. Especially when the tenet in question is that the source of the faith is the SOLE source.

It’s exactly what that’s like.

 

[Eklecktika]

And, FWIW:

Here’s Cyrils take on the matter:

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

Or the OTHER Cyril:

“[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God.” Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“Hold fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God.” Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, here. But I will make one more post, replying to the more lengthy one in which you addressed the verses I mentioned. Stand by to stand by (That will likely be my last post on the subject for the day, as I have an appointment at 4. New paint job to cover my gray hairs. Ah, getting old is wonderful.)

 

[Eklecktika]

I think we can agree on that with the further distinction that we believe the Bible takes precedence over Ellen White.

Good. Then we can agree on something. Best to find the common ground first, no?

Posted by Eklecktika
The first thing that any person who insists that sola scriptura is the proper base of Christianity ought to be able to prove is the obvious, and that needs must be settled before going any further, as it’s the crux of the matter.

If that doctrine is central to Christianity, and all Christian truth is contained in the books of the Bible LESS the Septuagint, then:

Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the SOLE source of revelation?

Surely such an important doctrine would be contained therein, would it not? Remember, profitable does NOT equate to “sole”. I eagerly await your response

As I stated in a previous post, I believe the onus should be on the Catholic Church to prove the opposite.

Did not the Catholic Church exist for how many years prior to the invention of Sola Scriptura? Does not Scripture INCLUDE the mention of Tradition (hint: it does)

Posted by Eklecktika
How does Sola Scriptura reconcile with John 16:4 and the surrounding text?

I don’t see anything here that does not reconcile with sola Scriptura. Why don’t you tell me why you think this makes a difference.

My apologies . What a difference a character makes. The verse intended was John 16:14. Here is the text:

[14] He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. [15] All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

The Father gives to Christ what Christ later gives to the Apostles, therefore establishing authority which was not mitigated or diminished in any way. I believe this constitutes fulfillment of your previous request, regarding authority to determine whether sola scriptura is valid, as well. (In addition to the previous remarks regarding the inclusion of Tradition in Scripture.)

Posted by Eklecktika
How about the multitude of verses repeating the command to ‘go forth and preach’?

How does the command to ‘go forth and preach’ conflict with sola Scriptura?

Sola scriptura means, in essence, only that which is written down. Was all that Christ did and said in three years of public ministry written down? I think not. Go forth and preach means to disseminate all that was contained within His teachings. BIG difference. HUGE.

Posted by Eklecktika
If Christ taught Sola Scriptura, wouldn’t he have said 'Go forth and distribute the Bible, that they may read the Word of God?"

Are you suggesting that if we want to be consistant in our belief in sola Scriptura we should just place a Bible in the front of the Church and come read it every Sabbath? It doesn’t have to be one or the other. When Jesus commanded us to “go forth and preach” he was telling us to preach His Word.

No, and I think you know that. Christ said to preach. Indicating, as you well know, that oral dissemination of Truth is equal to other forms of dissemination.

Posted by Eklecktika
Or are you saying that Christ didn’t mean what He said?

No, I’m not saying that.

I know you aren’t. You know how that works-extrapolate to the extreme.

Originally Posted by Eklecktika
How did the first Christians, before the Bible was even finalized, keep track of what was to be taught, and what was to be ignored?

The Epistles and Acts were written very early by the Apostles Paul and Luke followed shortly by the Gospels. So within a short period of time the writings that make the New Testament were already circulating. They can be tied directly to Jesus’ desciples and the only reliable source of the teachings of Jesus.

But they weren’t all able to read. Anything that was written was hand copied. And there were quite a few things circulating that WEREN’T destined to become part of the NT. How did they distinguish between the two? By Oral Tradition.

Posted by Eklecktika How about Mark 16:15? How about John 20:30? I’d especially like to hear your explanation of John 20:30. 2 Thesselonians would also like an explanation-2:14, 15; 3:6.

Mark 16:15 - “preach the Gospel” - The Gospel is written and included in the Bible

But what they had at that point was NOT the bible. It wasn’t conceived yet. That means they had more to choose from than just the Bible, as it isn’t the entire Deposit of Faith, is it? Judging by the following, I’d say you acknowledge that it is not.

John 20:30 - Who knows what the signs are “which are not recorded in this book”? The book referred to is certainly not the New Testament as it had not been compiled yet. It is most likely referring to the Gospel of John itself and does not necessarily mean that something essential for our salvation was not included in the Bible. At any rate in verse 31 we are told that the purpose of John’s gospel is that “you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah”. If the other signs were important beyond what had already been presented they would have also been included.

So not all that Christ did was important? Did He not command, though, to Observe all that I have commanded you? How does that (Matt 28:20) reconcile with John 20:30? How can we do ALL that was commanded, if only part was written down? Christ didn’t say do only the important parts, or the parts that will be written down.

I see you missed Thesselonians, which, incidentally, deals with tradition. It keeps popping up, doesn’t it! I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it. But that will have to wait til morning. Have a good night, CL.