Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[ibetrippin07]

not go beyond what is written is a general statement and also provided here for the church of corinth. This church was messed up pretty badly so to restore order to it paul tells them to look at the writings provided, also this letter is written after the gospels, it would not be the only book in the nt if you really for whatever reason wanted to take it that way, but i highly doubt that even you believe it to mean this…

why did Jesus establish a church? because hes kind enough to die for our sins and allow us to gather in worship of him. This question could be better aligned with why did God create mankind? I dont know but it has nothing to do with sola scriptura…
what errors do you speak of pertaining to luke?

Moses was told to write these things down so that man wouldnt get it twiste later as to his origins. can you imagine the field day evolutionists would have without the tora in existence? Also again God would know what went down in this gap of time and he instructed moses to write what he wrote for his own purpose not moses
in the ten commandments its stated thou shalt not murder (or kill for some translations iv read). Theres nothing oral about this, it was written on an actual stone tablet a long long long time ago and written in the scriptures as well. Jesus is expanding on this point showing that God demands more to the extent that we shouldn’t get angry at people for no reason and not to just call people fools.
I suppose i must ask what did Jesus use as the basis of his “I say to you” other than an existing scripture? If the scriptures are already the word of God, is he not just adding more text to be understood now?

knowing who you have learned them from is referring to knowing your source and being confident in its reliability, i see no support of tradition here.

where does the bible call profitable pertaining to traditions?

 

[Philthy]

So here we come back to the issue at hand. Do we believe X because an authority that we countenance tells us its true? Or do we believe X because it is true?

In the context of Protestantism vs Catholicism, I don’t see any difference between the two:
everyone relies on “an authority that (they) countenance”. In the case of Catholics that countenance is the Church; in Protestantism it is their denominational affiliation or their personal interpretation.

Im only slightly disappointed that you didnt respond to my evaluation of 1Cor 3 in light of 1 Cor 6. :crying:

 

[ibetrippin07]

still @ guan
why did he put Jesus to the test? well if you read my previous posts in response to yours, you will find that he himself commanded a testing of spirits. This man was only doing the correct thing. again we have to live, Jesus says thats enough so it is.
ohn 5:39-41
39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
AND IT IS THEY THAT BEAR WITNESS TO ME.
the scriptures dont only lead you to him but are the basis for all teachings.

I apologize for my sudden take of hostility that was not meant. I dont hide whats on my mind so i spit what i say, although i apologize if it came out in a disrespectful manner.
If the tradition was neither stupid or secret then why are you getting made about my criticism of stupid secret traditions? am i talking about yours?
The Bereans are no different than the ninivites. They received God moreso than most people.

regarding Thess 2:15, as i pointed out earlier the traditions they speak of are written in these letters. They are not hidden as yourself have already suggested but written down here in the text.

Im not too worried about missing out on some unnecesary tradition. ill let Jesus say it this way
mark 7:7-13
7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ 8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." 9 Then he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother’; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God )— 12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

I like the timothy scripture however before it comes this:
2 Tim 1:9-11 (speaking about the power of God) who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our savior Jesus Christ who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles"
timothy states that your works are out the window, his purpose and grace which has existed even before our time is bringing life. through what? the gospel! he is now a teacher so when he says follow my words hes not saying some unwritten wording that is not already taught in the gospel but to remember them because they are OF the gospel!
I do not believe the apostles commanded us to keep anything that was not written in the bible, the letters therein. Im yet to see a proof of otherwise.

 

[ibetrippin07]

while you probably have already read my response to this “i say to you” referring to traditions, what is your strongest piece of evidence that such is true?
Jesus taught no parables contrary to the OT. parables are easy to remember and they stand the test of time. Many irish and celtic folklore has stood the test of time regarding evles dwarves and the “good people”. All the stories are consistent with each other just as ours are too. why wouldnt you use parables to convey a point?

“It is hard to see certain things when one is wearing blinders, is it not? Those doggone anti-catholic eye equipments really make a lot of scripture invisible.”
I sir am not anti catholic and you are yet to quote me somewhere where this is so. but is this really how you respond to a solid point?

again the apostles said no such thing anywhere. I have pointed out the traditions to be preserved already have been, in these writings. preserve the writings preserve the tradition.

I know you guys see the bible as authoritative, you also see the pope as authoritative and you believe Christ is re sacrificed in the eucharist (this is why he is constantly depicted as on the cross and protestants dont, they believe he died 1 time, i know what the eucharist is and have actually partaken in it before)
but this is getting away from the original discussion, if you would like to point me in a direction to a thread to discuss things other than sola scriptura id be happy to discuss with you m8

my point about posting is why waste the space if your not going to reply and put forward an argument using empirical evidence provided? however you thankfully have and i commend you sir for that! however you should not shun away from interpreting these scriptures why not meet this problem head on?

 

[Philthy]

@ ignatius:
I would argue Jesus is God and since God wrote the holy scriptures through man, then his word alone is authoritative enough. He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles…no.

Have you not read the Scriptures? Cephas not only healed the sick but raised the dead as well. People were healed by having an Apostle’s shadow fall on them. So your"… no" turns out to be “yes” and whatever point you intended to prove is based on a false premise.

 

[ibetrippin07]

@ eric.
well lets conduct an experiment shall we? We are from two entirely different denominations (some will argue different faiths but i disregard this as nonsense.) You are not even a proponent of sola scriptura and i will conduct this with the use of scripture.

neccesity of baptism: yes, ill keep this to only a few scriptures although there are dozens on the subject, Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said to them 'repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”
Jesus himself was baptized, so if my teacher and savior did it, im doin it too! im imitating him!

Sacraments: We will disagree here by nature here are the scriptures backing its neccesity:
Matthew 26:26-29 Mark 14:22-25 Luke 22:17-20 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,

I will stand by the fact that obviously Jesus is commanding a communion to be taken of some sort, its bread and wine. they are body and blood symbols. It is done “in rememberance of Me” Paul says in 1 corinth 10:16-17 “The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of CHrist” The bread which we break, is it not for the communion of the body of Christ? For we though many are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."
clearly we should partake, paul instructs it and so does Jesus and paul explains it although this differs from the eucharist that these are merely symbols for his body and blood. otherwise if one were to take them literally then I guess we are not flesh and bone but a big somehow living body of bread…
So we know there’s a communion and we must take it. it is the representation of his body and blood which was shed. So paul thankfully gives instruction for this process
1 Corin 11:17-34: Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you (apparently divisions happen with or without sola scriptura having anything to do with it) and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you that those who are approved may be recognized amoung you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lords Supper. For in eating each one takes his own supper ahead of others and one is hungry and another is drunk. what! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do no praise you.
now according to the eucharist and correct me if I am wrong for I very well may be. Jesus literal flesh and literal blood is supposed to consumed. Now unless Jesus blood is fermented how will they get drunk? why would one find Jesus flesh so tasty they must become full off it!? just saying, anyway back to the rest of it
23: for I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread:and when he had given thanks he broke it and said “take eat’this is my body which is broken for you; do this in remeberance of me” In the same manner he also took the cup after supper saying “this cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. FOr as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lords death till he comes
^so finally the point of all this is revealed by paul. by doing communion you are proclaiming his death till he comes which truely is to acknowledge his death and his 2nd coming.
27: Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords body. For this reason many are weak and sick amoung you, and many sleep. for if we would judge ourselves we would not be judged but when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord that we may not be condemned with the world. Therefore my breathren, when you come together to eat wait for one another. but if anyone is hungry let him eat at home lest you come together for judgement. And the rest I will set in order when I come.”

so there you have it regarding communion it is quite clear that we can agree its neccesary. maybe we differ on its purpose and what actually occurs but its neccesary.

 

[ibetrippin07]

Women in the ministry? I see no scripture barring a women from teaching the word of God or prophesying it.

homosexual marriages? between a man and a women…I dont think need more be spent on that one. anyone confusing this to be possible is clearly just doctoring scripture to fit their lifestyle and not truth.

divorce? we got Matthew 5:32- dont divorce your wife for any other reason than sexual immorality else you cause her to commit adultery. dont marry a divorced women as well.
Im sure we all know the “what God has joined together do not separate”
it is what it is

abortion? we are all familiar with thou shalt not murder and I knew you before the womb type things. I dont think theres much evidence to support abortion being ok so def a no no.

sex before marriage? nah why else would paul tell people if they are so carnally infatuated with each other to get married?

My point here is the bible says what it says, most things are just obvious and if you study the scriptures the truth really cannot escape you.
are there no divisions in the catholic faith? is there not roman catholic? old catholic? independent catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Eastern Catholic? Oriental Orthodox?
please do not fall for the blatant shrouding that all Catholics are united by one church and there are no other denominations or interpretations within their own circles…

Thankfully we are saved and sanctified by Jesus blood. Thats all you need, how can anyone misinterpret this?
Is this not the point of the forum to discuss and correct each other that we may grow spiritually? are we not told to
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).??

who is right in this debate is the men in blue. the bible was sufficient to come to this conclusion

 

[ibetrippin07]

Have you not read the Scriptures? Cephas not only healed the sick but raised the dead as well. People were healed by having an Apostle’s shadow fall on them. So your"… no" turns out to be “yes” and whatever point you intended to prove is based on a false premise.

alester crowley killed a man by casting a spell on him. he also cursed and destroyed many lives. so what do you believe this to mean? is aliester crowley some sort of supernatural entity? no, he gets his power from demons and the apostles and us get our power from God. They again were nothing special

 

[ESMDHokie77]

My point here is the bible says what it says, most things are just obvious and if you study the scriptures the truth really cannot escape you.
are there no divisions in the catholic faith? is there not roman catholic? old catholic? independent catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Eastern Catholic? Oriental Orthodox?
please do not fall for the blatant shrouding that all Catholics are united by one church and there are no other denominations or interpretations within their own circles…

You are confused greatly on this subject. Capital “O” Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Catholic Church. Some doctrines ARE different

Eastern Catholic Churches are different rites of Catholicism. NO DOCTRINES ARE DIFFERENT from the Latin Rite (Roman) Catholicism.

Please do not fall for the blatant lie that all protestants are united by the invisible Church. You be trippin’!

 

[ibetrippin07]

You are confused greatly on this subject. Capital “O” Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Catholic Church. Some doctrines ARE different

Eastern Catholic Churches are different rites of Catholicism. NO DOCTRINES ARE DIFFERENT from the Latin Rite (Roman) Catholicism.

Please do not fall for the blatant lie that all protestants are united by the invisible Church. You be trippin’!

so your telling me that if we go through every scripture of the bible every catholic on the planet will give the same response?
please do not be in error friend. Christ says we his saints are his bride, his church. that is the church any believer belongs to, not the catholic, protestant, orthodox or what have you. the church was never meant to be interpreted as a structure. unless of course you think Jesus really was a cornerstone that fit into some building and was thrown away as a stone…

on a side note could someone pm me how to multi quote for the future, i really do feel bad writing all that text with no real organization to it! lol

 

[EricFilmer]

You’re blaming the Bible for its alleged lack of clarity. I’ll blame William Arnold III, for his lack of logic.

I’m trying to present my comments in this thread in a methodical way, responding to your statements in chronological order. But I am going to go ahead and momentarily skip to this statement (I’ll get to the previous ones in time).

In essence you dodged what was a perfectly reasonable question!

If Scripture has the formal sufficiency in the manner which you describe then it would clearly teach the fundamental elements of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Clear teaching, after all, is what formal sufficiency is supposed to be about.

I challenged you to show where the Bible states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are fully distinct from one another. This is part of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and if a Christian is going to worship the Holy Spirit as a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son then something more that a vague Bible passage which “kinda - sorta” teaches this is needed. To justify such a radical idea, an adherent of Sola Scriptura needs from the Bible the kind of clear teaching that formal sufficiency promises is there. So where is it? This is what Challenge #4 is addressing.

In your initial response to this challenge, you stated:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26)
I see three distinct persons mentioned here: Jesus is speaking (“in my name”) about “the Father” who will send “the Holy Spirit.”

And I responded to this by pointing out that William Arnold III, a Oneness Pentecostal and adherent of Sola Scriptura, uses the exact same Bible verse in his demonstration that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not biblical! But instead of explaining to me exactly why your interpretation of Scripture is correct and his is wrong, you simply say that Arnold’s interpretation displays a “lack of logic.”

So that’s it?

That’s all???

Do you honestly feel that you have effectively refuted Arnold’s interpretation of Scripture and defended your own in a scholarly manner?

In other words, am I to presume that your personal interpretation of Scripture is supposed to be the “litmus test” for logic, and therefore an opposing interpretation must be illogical?

So how about explaining exactly how Arnold’s article, Is Jesus God the Father, demonstrates logical fallacies. If there are no logical fallacies (of one kind or another) then his conclusions are just as logical as yours.

And this brings us back to the same error in reasoning that you’ve been asserting over and over again—namely—that the mere existence of multiple interpretations implies either a), that the Bible is unclear…

When looking for the scriptural foundation for a particular doctrine, the existence of multiple interpretations (each showing proper exegesis and logical reasoning) demonstrates that the doctrine in question is not clearly taught by the Bible alone. Therefore, the Bible lacks formal sufficiency in teaching that doctrine. So if you call this “an error in reasoning” then clearly explain why.

…or b) that we can never come to know that the Bible says simply because there are people out there who come to different conclusions than we do (as if there were no way to prove them wrong).

Then back this statement of yours up! Prove that Arnold’s interpretation is wrong! I can’t speak for Arnold, but I imagine he’d say, “No, Miguel, you’re interpretation of Scripture is illogical.” Well, objectively speaking, how far did that get us in discerning the truth of the matter?

This entire line of argumentation shows that you have bought into a questionable skeptical premise about truth itself and your appeal to “Sacred Tradition” and the “Magisterium,” is nothing more than an attempt to escape your own skeptical premise by an appeal to a “tie-breaking” authority…

Then clearly explain to me how adherents of Sola Scriptura determine which interpretation of Scripture is truthful when they come to different conclusions? In such a circumstance, I am asking you to tell me how the Church (based upon your concept of the Church) uses Sola Scriptura (based upon your definition of Sola Scriptura) determines which interpretation of Scripture is correct and which is not. I want to use your definitions because in the last few posts you have yet again accused me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura despite my attempts to stick with your own definitions. (And these attempts of mine are clearly articulated in Post #607 and reiterated in Post $682).

Moreover, I would like to see a practical application of this by illustrating it in the context of the Arnold article (which I linked above) or the John Ackerberg video debate I mentioned in Post #707, or whatever other situation you feel is fitting.

 

[pablope]

while you probably have already read my response to this “i say to you” referring to traditions, what is your strongest piece of evidence that such is true?

“It is hard to see certain things when one is wearing blinders, is it not? Those doggone anti-catholic eye equipments really make a lot of scripture invisible.”

 

[ESMDHokie77]

so your telling me that if we go through every scripture of the bible every catholic on the planet will give the same response?

It’s not about what we would privately interpret the verses to be, it’s what Christ teaches through His Body

Christ says we his saints are his bride, his church. that is the church any believer belongs to, not the catholic, protestant, orthodox or what have you.

Scripture refers to the Church in multiple instances as an entity with teaching authority. It works on multiple levels.

please do not be in error friend.

I promise you, Christ and His Church are never in error. I am trying to share, not my teachings, but Catholic teachings.

on a side note could someone pm me how to multi quote for the future, i really do feel bad writing all that text with no real organization to it! lol

I just copy and paste the code multiple times, and preview my posts to make sure it looks right before posting.

 

[fbl9]

I know you guys see the bible as authoritative, you also see the pope as authoritative and you believe Christ is re sacrificed in the eucharist (this is why he is constantly depicted as on the cross and protestants dont, they believe he died 1 time, i know what the eucharist is and have actually partaken in it before)
but this is getting away from the original discussion, if you would like to point me in a direction to a thread to discuss things other than sola scriptura id be happy to discuss with you m8

?

bible is authoritative yes Catholics blieve this but it is not the sole authority for it in it’s self can not make a judgement. Only those reading the words can do that.
Please do try to enlighten yourself with our true beleifs. Christ’s sacrifice is what is being offered up in the Eucharist. If you actually knew what the Eucharist is you won’t be where you are now.In a sense everything ties to the Eucharist, for it is a matter of truly knowing Christ or not.And you truly do not know Him. For you have rejected His Church for your own logic wrestling the word of God to your own end…

 

[Jason_L_Barnes]

There have been several posts throughout this thread citing individual Church fathers who are quoted in opposition to RC beliefs. I fear that these references lack perspective in that they are used, ironically enough, in an authoritative capacity in an attempt to diminish or even refute Catholic beliefs. To clarify, the individual’s beliefs are pitted against an entire councils rulings as if the individual merits equal consideration to that of an entire council.

Individual claims have never been effective as a counterclaim to the determinations of an entire group on subjective matters; especially, when the individual’s sole claim is made on less substantive material than the council and/or is simply a matter of preference. If this were so, how could any authoritative body function in this capacity? Juries don’t work this way, boards of corporations don’t work this way, legislative branches don’t work this way, and neither do Church councils. Additionally, none of the members of the aforementioned bodies receive their appointments outside of the institution from which proper authority was granted and thus granted.

We forget sometimes to account for human nature which possesses tendencies toward arrogance, pride, and selfishness. God, however, did not forget and the wisdom needed to confer on matters such as those faced by the early Church was made manifest in the councils. There have been and always will be those individuals who will not accept the truth, even within the intimate circle of Jesus’ apostles such as Judas Iscariot or those being taught the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I sometimes wonder if those who would not accept the teachings of Christ Himself prefigured the abandonment of the true Church by future generations.

Did God recognize this plight? Of course He did! Rather than let humanity completely devolve into squabbling splintered sects, God saw fit to institute an authority to safeguard the Word in scripture through the Church and provide guidance to those seeking the truth contained within. Despite God’s efforts to guide His children, some insisted on protesting His authority and rebelling anyway.

The need for authoritative guidance is apparent in every aspect of human society. A simple parallel would be education in mathematics. There are math books containing the rules and operations required to perform calculations such as addition. 1+1=2, we know this but, how did we learn it? Did we take the initiative to pick up the book on our own, read it, understand it, and apply it without anything other than our God given faculties to aid us? Probably not. We (the majority of us), under the guidance of an institution given authority to teach, are verbally instructed in class with the use of the book containing information good for equipping us with mathematical knowledge and shown how to properly apply that knowledge. The entire learning process is performed this way from pre-school to elementary, to intermediate, to high school, all the way through college to a doctorate.

As well meaning as an individual may be with the purest of intentions, it is impossible to know if everything we experience is seen in the light of truth without some sort of sounding board. Protestants argue that the “sounding board” is the Holy Spirit, and they are correct. Where protestants are wrong is in whom the Holy Spirit endowed with the ability to discern truth from error regarding scripture. As human nature has demonstrated, we as human beings require a teaching authority in order to gain a formal education, scripture is no different. Catholics spoke the Word, Catholics wrote the Word, Catholics preserved the Word, and the Catholic Church maintains the God given authority of Magisterium with regard to the Word.

 

[Philthy]

If Scripture has the formal sufficiency in the manner which you describe then it would clearly teach the fundamental elements of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Clear teaching, after all, is what formal sufficiency is supposed to be about.
Exactly. Miguel either cannot or will not acknowledge that he has failed in this regard. His failure is revealed in his very definition of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture. It is completely impractical and entirely unworkable to claim that Scripture is clear “enough”. How could Miguel know that it is clear “enough”? He would have to “know’” the truth of Scripture first, and how would he know that he knows it? He doesnt, just like every other SS adherent (including the Oneness Pentecostal apologist) - they simply pretend that their interpretations are somehow definitive - though not infallible - and it’s exasperating for those of us not burdened with such delusions. And not only that, but how, EXACTLY, does the issue of two contradictory understandings of a passage of Scripture get resolved? No answers from the SS community. They haven’t a clue.

What more is there to say really? If history is any indication, the old…“thank you for participating on this thread but Im done for now…” line will soon be employed.

So that’s it? That’s all??? Do you honestly feel that you have effectively refuted Arnold’s interpretation of Scripture and defended your own in a scholarly manner?

Sure he “feels” that he has, but what do feelings have to do with objective truth??

Moreover, I would like to see a practical application of this by illustrating it in the context of the Arnold article (which I linked above) or the John Ackerberg video debate I mentioned in Post #707, or whatever other situation you feel is fitting.

Don’t hold your breath!!!

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

so your telling me that if we go through every scripture of the bible every catholic on the planet will give the same response?

No, he didnt say that at all - that is merely a faulty exercise of deductive reasoning on your part. Just imagine what would happen if you applied that same faulty reasoning to your reading of Scripture! It is irrelevant whether every Catholic on the planet were in agreement on what a particular Scripture verse means. What is relevant is that everyone - Catholic or not - can know - with great precision - what the Catholic faith is. But how, EXACTLY, does a SS adherent know the faith ?

please do not be in error friend. Christ says we his saints are his bride, his church. that is the church any believer belongs to, not the catholic, protestant, orthodox or what have you.

You mean all church’s are the same…Branch Davidians, JWs, Eurantians, etc? Where, exactly, did you concoct that?

the church was never meant to be interpreted as a structure.

No kidding. No one has done so - what’s your point?

on a side note could someone pm me how to multi quote for the future, i really do feel bad writing all that text with no real organization to it! lol

when you are reading a post you will see a small “QUOTE” box at the bottom right corner - click it to respond (ie post) to that particular post. The text of the original poster will appear between a (QUOTE) and a (/QUOTE) only instead of parenthesis as I have done here there will be brackets. I didn’t use brackets because then they would disappear when I submitted this reply and you would have no idea what Im talking about.
Any text you wish to appear as a quote should be preceded by the word QUOTE in brackets, and should be followed by /QUOTE in brackets.
To attribute text to a particular poster, simply precede the text by QUOTE=Philthy in brackets and end it with /QUOTE in brackets. The small icon immediately to the left of the “#” icon at the top of the dialogue box will generate these for you! You simply move them to where they belong.

 

[guanophore]

Miguel failed by refusing to answer post #683 & #684. If Scripture alone were sufficient there would have been no need for the councils to refute these heresies. Everyone would know the truth simply by reading the Scriptures. If Miguel wants to convert me to SS he needs to answer #683 & 684.

Please do not put Miguel in the position of “converting” anyone! It is against he forum rules for him to attempt this, especially when it concerns a matter like SS which the Church has soundly rejected. If he were to take on such a task here, it would compromise his future posting privileges!

We can discuss, debate, enrich one another. I have to hand it to Miguel, he is indefatigable.

This is a fairly common misunderstanding of sola scriptura.  SS is simply not the claim that scripture requires no explication or interpretation. Nor is it the claim that scripture formulates all doctrines that we are to believe.

It is that idea of perspicacity that is claimed, that the average person can easily read and understand. It would seem to me that, if scripture is formally sufficient, then there would be no need for explication or interpretation. There are many modern proponents of SS that believe Scripture itself teaches/formulates doctrines. You may not be one of them, but most of us here have had much contact with such adherants to SS.

From the catholic point of view, scripture should not be separated from the Teaching Authority from whence it came. When it is “explicated and interpreted” apart from that, a drifting away from the One Faith occurs.

But what makes a council worth believing? Does the council have an intrinsic authority to tell us what scripture means? Or do we rather believe councils only insofar as they give credible interpretations of scripture?

Jesus promised the HS would lead the Church into “all Truth”. When the council meets, the HS guides them into “all Truth”. Sometimes, the council must exercise it’s intrinsic authority to tell us what scripture means, like the council of Jerusalem told the Gentiles that they did not need to be circumcised, or follow the Law of Moses. Why would your interpretation of Scripture be more “credible” than those to whom Jesus gave insight and authority? He promised to guide His Church. Individuals can only benefit from this to the extent that they are in unity with the Church He founded.

If you believe that councils have this kind of authority, then how would you justify that belief?

Don’t you think that is a topic for another thread? I think such a discussion should begin with the record of the first council in the book of Acts.

So here we come back to the issue at hand. Do we believe X because an authority that we countenance tells us its true? Or do we believe X because it is true?

For those in unity with the Church founded by Christ, these two things are in unity with one another.

 

[guanophore]

@ ignatius:

I would argue Jesus is God and since God wrote the holy scriptures through man, then his word alone is authoritative enough. He simply speaks a word and a man is healed. the apostles… no

Yes, His word is enough, but it is not confined to the Scriptures.

And those “men” who were moved by the Spirit to produce the Scriptures wrote infallibly.

to say Jesus never commanded anyone to write these things down is somewhat irrelevant because the apostles did write these things down because they knew to preserve the most important series of events in history and portray his teachings properly that they must be written down. I do believe they were inclined to do so by the holy spirit however just as any of the old testament writers were as well.

Yes, they were inspired,but they were also inspired BEFORE anything was written.

 Did they not preach and teach Gods already spoken word? (which i take the same as written scripture, authoritative.)

He gave all saved men the ability to preach and teach. look what happened to stephan. but what did he preach or teach that was not already written?

This is patently false, ibe. Even if all men could preach and teach, that would not mean they were authorized to do so.

while i agree many converted through oral word, oral word was not the basis or meant to be the basis of a rooted faith. oral word may get you in the door,

Is that right? How do you support such a perspective from the NT?

i would be no different than this proposed situation here.

Yes, it would. You have not been trained and authorized by the Apostles. You stand in the same position as Apollos.

I understand, which is why the gospels were written to all.

Actually, they were written for the Church.

preaching based on what? the scriptures!

Preaching is to be based upon the Apostolic message, often distorted by modern readers of the Scriptures.

 

[Algo1]

Here is a very helpful summary of what Francis Turretin has presented on what Perspecuity is not and what it is.

Turretin on Perspicuity of Scripture