It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[Lampo]

really ALL doctrines are in there? because the Catholic Church doesn’'t teach that, but if they did it would be …SOLA SCIPTURA!!!

What Catholic Doctrine is not found in Scripture?

 

[Lampo]

Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’"

Where does it say that in Scripture?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

no hostility indented : trying to clearly state points

a) I’m stuck on the words “self” and “any”:
is self referring to a personal self or the bible itself

because the Holy Spirit is the authority, do you mean any earthly authority?

B) what the words mean ,in context, weather a metaphor, simile, hyperbole , cultural reference, etc?
ex “eye of a needle” , is it the top of a needle , the actual name of a narrow street, or a type of gate.?
and then does that even matter to the point being made.

I teach senior high Bible study: the first lesson every year is this:
This is what I mean by interpret the Bible.
backtothebible.org/images/pdf/understanding.pdf

interpretation example: when Jesus said “it is finished”; what did He mean (not trying to debate this)

C) Romans 14 points out different believers can reach different conclusion about what is holy. and that is OK

A) “Self” as in one self, you. “Any” as all people, anyone. Isn’t using the “believer’s authority” (assuming you use it, forgive me if I’m off base) have some sort of “earthly” authority even though the H.S. is God and the Authority? Hmmm…

B) I don’t believe an object can interpret itself, an object doesn’t have the will or intellect to do so hence not buying into Principle 7 on your link. However, the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible does have the authority; this, I think, we are agreed upon. The stumbling block seems to be earthly authority.

 

[RedBert]

What Catholic Doctrine is not found in Scripture?

too easy

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

 

[nuntym]

Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’"

Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

:ehh: You do realize if you really followed them you would be in the Catholic Church, right?

 

[nuntym]

too easy

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

sigh That’s when I get when I don’t read posts closely.

 

[Lampo]

too easy

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

Key word = explicitly

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

The following was written before the Bible was assembled as we have it today: “If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

 

[RedBert]

A) “Self” as in one self, you. “Any” as all people, anyone. Isn’t using the “believer’s authority” (assuming you use it, forgive me if I’m off base) have some sort of “earthly” authority even though the H.S. is God and the Authority? Hmmm…

B) I don’t believe an object can interpret itself, an object doesn’t have the will or intellect to do so hence not buying into Principle 7 on your link. However, the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible does have the authority; this, I think, we are agreed upon. The stumbling block seems to be earthly authority.

When the question was first asked : I thought you were referring to does the Bible interpret the Bible.

so you are asking if any person can interpret scripture correctly.
the answer is yes …if …
if they can follow basic principles of Bible interpretation.

stanford.edu/group/ivgrad/events/roundtable/practical_hermeneutics.pdf
equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DI501-2.pdf

 

[Lampo]

so you are asking if any person can interpret scripture correctly.
the answer is yes …if …
if they can follow basic principles of Bible interpretation.

Where are those principles found in Scripture? Where does any Early Church Father lay out these principles?

 

[RedBert]

Where are those principles found in Scripture? Where does any Early Church Father lay out these principles?

I guess if they told you how do do it yourself they would be out of a job.

speaking of which… I need to go install a printer for someone…or I could show them that they could do it themselves…oh…wait then i would be out of a job…

 

[Dancelittleewok]

When the question was first asked : I thought you were referring to does the Bible interpret the Bible.

so you are asking if any person can interpret scripture correctly.
the answer is yes …if …
if they can follow basic principles of Bible interpretation.

stanford.edu/group/ivgrad/events/roundtable/practical_hermeneutics.pdf
equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DI501-2.pdf

If I can understand you correctly, then correctly isn’t infallibly?

 

[Lampo]

I guess if they told you how do do it yourself they would be out of a job.

speaking of which… I need to go install a printer for someone…or I could show them that they could do it themselves…oh…wait then i would be out of a job…

What are you talking about? Care to try and answer the questions again?

“Where are those principles (principles of Bible interpretation) found in Scripture? Where does any Early Church Father lay out these principles?”

 

[nuntym]

I guess if they told you how do do it yourself they would be out of a job.

speaking of which… I need to go install a printer for someone…or I could show them that they could do it themselves…oh…wait then i would be out of a job…

Excuse me, are you telling us that the New Testament writers and the Early Fathers of Christianity — including those who died or risked dying for their faith during the era of Roman Empire persecution — did not tell the future Christians how to read the Bible because “they would be out of a job?”

Do you realize what you are saying here?

 

[RedBert]

Excuse me, are you telling us that the New Testament writers and the Early Fathers of Christianity — including those who died or risked dying for their faith during the era of Roman Empire persecution — did not tell the future Christians how to read the Bible because “they would be out of a job?”

Do you realize what you are saying here?

it’s joke

 

[nuntym]

So…the “correct” way of reading the Bible cannot be found in the Bible? Cannot be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

 

[RedBert]

Key word = explicitly

QUOTE]

apply the exact same standard to the biblical proof of the Assumption of Mary to Sola Scriptura

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.

What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?..You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).

It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.

Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested…Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.

Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation.

equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura

 

[Lampo]

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

The Bible does not teach. *People *teach. What Apostle or Early Church Father taught sola scriptura? BTW, I forget, what is the official definition of SS that all Protestants adhere to?

Let’s get back to what you teach to very impressionable senior highschoolers. You teach them that one can interpret Scripture correctly if they have the principles of basic Bible interpretation. Who determines if they’ve applied these principles correctly and interpreted it correctly? Where does the person who determines this get their authority? Where are those principles (principles of Bible interpretation) found in Scripture? Where does any Early Church Father lay out these principles?

 

[nuntym]

I repeat my question RedBert: the “correct” way of reading the Bible, these “principles” you say that are found in

stanford.edu/group/ivgrad/events/roundtable/practical_hermeneutics.pdf
equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DI501-2.pdf

cannot be found in the Bible? Cannot be found from the writings of the Early Christian Fathers?

 

[RedBert]

I repeat my question RedBert: the “correct” way of reading the Bible, these “principles” you say that are found in

stanford.edu/group/ivgrad/events/roundtable/practical_hermeneutics.pdf
equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DI501-2.pdf

cannot be found in the Bible? Cannot be found from the writings of the Early Christian Fathers?

does Shakespeare tell you how to read Shakespeare ?
Does looking at a painting tell you how to view it?

I don’t know if or how the early Church Fathers told someone to interpret scripture.

I’ll buy this and let you know what i find out. but it looks like they did.

amazon.com/Biblical-Interpretation-Sources-Christian-Thought/dp/0800614143

 

[RedBert]

The Bible does not teach. *People *teach. What Apostle or Early Church Father taught sola scriptura? BTW, I forget, what is the official definition of SS that all Protestants adhere to?

test

Let’s get back to what you teach to very impressionable senior highschoolers. You teach them that one can interpret Scripture correctly if they have the principles of basic Bible interpretation. Who determines if they’ve applied these principles correctly and interpreted it correctly? Where does the person who determines this get their authority? Where are those principles (principles of Bible interpretation) found in Scripture? Where does any Early Church Father lay out these principles?