It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[MonFrere]

since 500AD , since 1517 ?

again … I think we can even do better. The Bible gives regulations regarding SLAVERY. It was an idea that was accepted as part of ancient society. St. Paul commented on slavery but didn’t even hint of it being contrary to the dignity of man. Today, slavery – EVEN WITH BIBLICAL PRECEDENT - has been abolished from Christian theology and is considered a practice antithetical to all Christian practice.

So, I ask, why would a true believer in sola scriptura quit believing in a practice that has thousands of years of scriptural support? You should be defending the practice – with some cautionary warnings. Why do you support the Catholic Church on this issue?

MonFrere

 

[RedBert]

Hi Red!

The short answer is that yes, absolutely, certain teachings have developed. The two that come to mind are the Trinity and the Nature of Christ (hypostatic union). I’m not sure that I would describe those developments solely as the result of “a better or more complete understanding of Scripture”,

I was thinking more on the lines of
breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=6341

 

[clmowry]

I was thinking more on the lines of
breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=6341

Read carefully.

I think you fill find the the Pope hasn’t actually changed anything beyond the definition of “Sola Fide”.

It’s much like what we are doing in this thread relative to “Sola Scriptura”.

Apparently the confusion has been around Catholics thinking that “Sola” meant “alone”.

When “Sola Scriptura” really meant “the Bible and all the other stuff too”.

Chuck

 

[MonFrere]

Read carefully.

I think you fill find the the Pope hasn’t actually changed anything beyond the definition of “Sola Fide”.

I agree. I think Pope Benedict was, in a gracious way, baiting Protestant Christians. How many times had members of this forum stated that “faith” couldn’t be alone - but IF faith worked by love; then that’s a different issue. The Pope was stating nothing different from this; except perhaps adding a couple details. But the Pope also explained St. Paul and what a real “works righteousness” would look like – the demands of a law keeping Jew with all their “works” of ritual washings and cleansings etc.

MonFrere

 

[RedBert]

I agree. I think Pope Benedict was, in a gracious way, baiting Protestant Christians. How many times had members of this forum stated that “faith” couldn’t be alone - but IF faith worked by love; then that’s a different issue. The Pope was stating nothing different from this; except perhaps adding a couple details. But the Pope also explained St. Paul and what a real “works righteousness” would look like – the demands of a law keeping Jew with all their “works” of ritual washings and cleansings etc.

MonFrere

I guess we can now interpret the interpreter.

and by what authority to you interpret what the Pope said?

btw: the source atricle is here at
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

“Disagreement over **this doctrine had been at the heart of the Reformation **in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in western Europe.”

Yes, that is the true reason for the split, NOT Sola Scriptura but Sola Fide.

"Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed,"

read that again to make sure you get.

no spin: no word play on what the Pope said.

Luther correctly used the Bible in contrast to tradition to show that we are ‘justified by faith alone’,

The church rightly changed a doctrine or practice to agree with the Bible , BECAUSE the scripture is the** paramount authorty and to which we yield assent in all matters.**

No spin , no word play , the scripture is the paramount , supreme , top , uppermost , chief , in a class by itself, AUTHOURITY to which we yeild in ALL matters!

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,** which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.** -St Augustine

 

[nuntym]

I guess we can now interpret the interpreter.

and by what authority to you interpret what the Pope said?

btw: the source atricle is here at
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

“Disagreement over **this doctrine had been at the heart of the Reformation **in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in western Europe.”

Yes, that is the true reason for the split, NOT Sola Scriptura but Sola Fide.

"Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed,"

read that again to make sure you get.

no spin: no word play on what the Pope said.

Luther correctly used the Bible in contrast to tradition to show that we are ‘justified by faith alone’,

The church rightly changed a doctrine or practice to agree with the Bible , BECAUSE the scripture is the** paramount authorty and to which we yield assent in all matters.**

No spin , no word play , the scripture is the paramount , supreme , top , uppermost , chief , in a class by itself, AUTHOURITY to which we yeild in ALL matters!

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,** which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.** -St Augustine

Could you please define “faith” for us, RedBert?

Or, if you don’t want to, can you please state how the Holy Father defined “faith”, according to the article?

 

[RedBert]

Could you please define “faith” for us, RedBert?

Or, if you don’t want to, can you please state how the Holy Father defined “faith”, according to the article?

easy one

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). Faith should be understood as synonymous with trust in something. Within Christianity, It is a divine gift (Rom. 12:3) and comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). It is the means by which the grace of God is accounted to the believer who trusts in the work of Jesus on the cross (Eph. 2:8). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). It is by faith that Christians live their lives, “The righteous shall live by faith,” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17).

 

[clmowry]

Yes, apparently this works with any book.

Somehow you forgot to quote this part of the article:

"By defining ‘faith’ as ‘identification with Christ expressed in love for God and neighbor,’ Pope Benedict qualified his statement, noting that the Apostle Paul had written about such faith in his letters, especially the one to the Philippians."

Which has of course always been the Catholic Position. It’s not the “Faith” part of “Sola Fide” that was ever questioned.

But now we are off topic again, which seems to be inevitable in any thread about proving Sola Scriptura from Scripture.

Or is this somehow going to show that Sola Scriptura is required by scripture?

Chuck

I guess we can now interpret the interpreter.

and by what authority to you interpret what the Pope said?

btw: the source atricle is here at
au.christiantoday.com/article/luther-rome-and-the-bible/5255.htm

“Disagreement over **this doctrine had been at the heart of the Reformation **in the 16th century, splitting Christianity in western Europe.”

Yes, that is the true reason for the split, NOT Sola Scriptura but Sola Fide.

"Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed,"

read that again to make sure you get.

no spin: no word play on what the Pope said.

Luther correctly used the Bible in contrast to tradition to show that we are ‘justified by faith alone’,

The church rightly changed a doctrine or practice to agree with the Bible , BECAUSE the scripture is the** paramount authorty and to which we yield assent in all matters.**

No spin , no word play , the scripture is the paramount , supreme , top , uppermost , chief , in a class by itself, AUTHOURITY to which we yeild in ALL matters!

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,** which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.** -St Augustine

 

[nuntym]

easy one

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). Faith should be understood as synonymous with trust in something. Within Christianity, It is a divine gift (Rom. 12:3) and comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). It is the means by which the grace of God is accounted to the believer who trusts in the work of Jesus on the cross (Eph. 2:8). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). It is by faith that Christians live their lives, “The righteous shall live by faith,” (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17).

Now I see that it was you who did not read the article you posted.

For what Pope Benedict said as the definition of faith was:

The pope defined faith as ‘identification with Christ expressed in love for God and neighbour’.

Source

Do you know what THAT means, RedBert? Read what Jesus said about love:

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” John 14:15

In effect, Pope Benedict said that faith is expressed with keeping God’s commands, with good works. Faith that is not expressed with love is false.

EDIT: Oops, clmowry beat me into it

 

[JustaServant]

Obedience is what it is all about.
Trying to gain authority is the problem.
So I guess in a way, authority is what this is all about

That’s what CM’s thread is trying to point out. Protestants say all we need for faith and practice is in the Bible. But who has the authority to decide what that is? Unless there is a foundation with which to interpret scripture, it’s like trying to drive your car without the engine. The engine is the Bible, it works, but it has to be ATTACHED to something in order for the car to go.
For 500 years Protestants have been trying to drive an engine without a car.

 

[MariaG]

Isn’t it just a matter of fact that when one accepts that scripture tells you to take something to the Church, that you are acknowledging that scripture has the ultimate authority? If not, one would no reason to quote scripture as rational for when, where and why one takes something to the church, for if scripture was not the source of authority one would simply not care what scripture said about it. Catholics and non-Catholics alike defer to scripture and cite it for one primary reason, that when there is a difference between human opinions scripture is the final arbitrator. One does not need scripture to tell us that it is, one declares it so when one accepts it as canon – “a measuring standard or rule” (CCC).

Any other authority that any individual or institution has it has because he/she/it has received it from Christ and that act is attested to in scripture. Apart from that authority that scripture conveys, one has no authority of one’s own. We only have conferred authority, not intrinsic authority. We we step outside of that authority which scripture attests that God in Jesus Christ confers on us through his Holy Spirit, and attempt to claim some sort of authority on our own, then we are right back in the Garden and listening to the serpent once again.

I see Randy already answered this point by point. The most important being that your first statement which you seem to build the rest of your post on, is quite simply, wrong.

It was on the basis of the Authority of the Apostles and those who were their disciples that the scriptures themselves were judged to be Apostolic and inspired.

That I will grant you.

If you grant that the Church in 300AD had the authority to judge that which is scripture, then, in another thread of course you should explore WHEN the Church lost its authority or why you accept its evaluation of scriture if they had no authority. But that topic would diverge too much from the topic of this thread.

I posted other posts but they too diverge from the topic of this thread so deleted them.

The point is (with what is on topic for this thread) that when I (and most others) use scripture, I usually am doing so to show the Christian that I am talking to, who believes scripture is the ultimate authority, that scripture in fact contradicts their opinion that scripture is the final or ultimate or sole authority. Nowhere does scripture say that, but there is much scripture that talks of the authority of the Church and those in the Church.

It seems to me that if one cannot show from scripture that it is above, final, sole or whatever definition one claims scripture alone means, and one is in fact provided with scripture that talks of the Church having that authority, one would need to seriously look at the claims of the Reformers who come along 1500 years after the fact and claim that scripture says different and take a very hard look at the claims the Catholic Church whom the Reformers broke from says.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MonFrere]

I guess we can now interpret the interpreter.

Are you now admitting that WORDS need interpreted – whether that word be the “WORD OF GOD” or the word of our Pope? If you do, we’re making progress, RedBert.

and by what authority to you interpret what the Pope said?

My “authority” is not the issue in this point. The reason you should believe me is because being Catholic requires a certain amount of “catholic-think” or catholic-speak" and as nuntym’s answer was stated in a manner that I cannot improve upon, because he understands “catholic-think” and “catholic-speak” too, I don’t feel the need to say anything other than his answer is right on the money.

"Luther had correctly translated Paul’s words as ‘justified by faith alone’, the well-known sola fide, Benedict affirmed,"

read that again to make sure you get.

I said you were being graciously “baited” and you took the “bait”. That’s fabulous!! Honestly!

no spin: no word play on what the Pope said.

Here’s where nuntym’s answer concerning THE POPE’S DEFINITION of faith comes in to play and where your quoting of Heb 11:1 and other scriptures are getting jumbled up. The Pope’s answer is in “catholic-speak” – FAITH WORKS BY LOVE (as the Pope stated - love of Christ and love of neighbor).

I’m also working through a book by Pope Benedict called Credo for Today. The first chapter says that LOVE is all that NECESSARY for a Christian (PERIOD). The Pope affirms this and says there are no needs for any ifs, ands or buts. The Pope then goes on to say that LOVE for God will ALWAYS result in man realizing that he is not up to the task of loving to the demands necessary - and the result of that realization is FAITH. The Pope used this as a segue into the Christian Profession of FAITH - as expressed in the Apostles Creed. The Profession of FAITH is the pathway we follow to learn the LOVE OF GOD. Again, you must be familiar with “catholic-think” to really grasp on to how a Catholic views the three great theological virtues of Faith - Hope - and Love (Charity).

The church rightly changed a doctrine or practice to agree with the Bible , BECAUSE the scripture is the** paramount authority and to which we yield assent in all matters.**

No, after taking the bait you just spit it out!! The Pope changed NOTHING concerning Catholic Doctrine. He just explained it in a way that would be consonant with Catholic teaching.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical,** which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.** -St Augustine

More Protestant bait. St. Augustine also said - Rome has spoken - the matter is closed. If you take both St. Augustine quotes at face value you cannot come close to calling St. Augustine some proto-Protestant living in the 4-5th century. Please learn “catholic-speak” so you can properly understand Catholic theologians and saints.

MonFrere

 

[RedBert]

“catholic-think” and “catholic-speak”.

aka “word spin”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

That’s what CM’s thread is trying to point out. Protestants say all we need for faith and practice is in the Bible. But who has the authority to decide what that is? Unless there is a foundation with which to interpret scripture, it’s like trying to drive your car without the engine. The engine is the Bible, it works, but it has to be ATTACHED to something in order for the car to go.
For 500 years Protestants have been trying to drive an engine without a car.

I would have said “like trying to drive a car without an engine” - turning the Bible into just another work of English Literature.
Putting the Holy Spirit on hold and replacing it with man’s reasoning.

 

[MonFrere]

aka “word spin”

As a matter of fact, YES. All words need spun according to the intent of the speaker. It the nature of true communication.

MonFrere

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

How can a reasonable person advocate primacy of Scripture and not be a member of the Catholic Church?
A Christian is obligated to be obedient to the Faith (Rom 1:5)
Confess the Faith (Mt 10:32; Rom 10:10)
It is the Christian’s duty to turn to the Catholic Church as a means of grace (John 3:5, 6:54)
A Christian is defined as one subject to Church Authority (Mt 18:17; Lk 10:16)

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I’m not creating a straw man, I’m responding to someone who offered verses they feel “prove” Sola Scriptura (whatever definition they might be using) from Scripture.

That person claimed that Scripture says that Scripture is “above” the Church and Tradition.

The verses they offer do not say this or anything like it.

It’s not my “straw man” it’s their position.

If you don’t like their claim, then take it up with them.

Chuck

I still see it as a strawman, because what you state as their position here, and what you said are two different statements:

Scripture is “above” the Church and Tradition

cannot be equated with

“everything I want you to know has been written in these 73 (66) books.”

And that you would seek to disprove the second as a substitute for the first is why I said you created a strawman.

 

[awantz]

How can a reasonable person advocate primacy of Scripture and not be a member of the Catholic Church?
A Christian is obligated to be obedient to the Faith (Rom 1:5)
Confess the Faith (Mt 10:32; Rom 10:10)
It is the Christian’s duty to turn to the Catholic Church as a means of grace (John 3:5, 6:54)
A Christian is defined as one subject to Church Authority (Mt 18:17; Lk 10:16)

I looked up all the scripture you quoted and I abide/ follow all of them. Yet, I am not Catholic.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I’m an not a scholar on these issues but what I give us is based upon my reading of these thing the past 10 years since my reversion to the Catholic faith back in 2000. The Catholic Church councils are actually very very precise in their language when they state things formally in Church documents. They will say how far any idea can go and were the idea cannot go. Often in history it is the HERETICS that bring the Church together to study a point (or points) of doctrine to bring further refinement to the points in question. To be a little bit hyperbolic - heretics has served the Church well.

The Canon is one of those points that needed clarification in the early Church. The Church was moving along very well without any declared canon UNTIL HERETICS e.g. the gnostics took scriptures and did a huge cut and paste of those parts that conformed to their gnosticism. With the confusion FROM THE OUTSIDE of the Church there was a need “within” the Church for clarity in the canon. So, this is how the canon was decided upon. Also, the real purpose of the scriptures for the Church in the early days was for choosing LITURGICAL TEXTS. This is where the TRADITION OF THE CHURCH was passed down to the laity. The main place where the early Christians got “their bible” was in the liturgy. This was also one of the major reasons for sacred art in the Church; especially demonstrated in stained glass - to bring the illiterate in touch with the great stories of the scriptures. Personally, I think it’s a very revealing point that the Church did NOT think ONLY scripture should be displayed in sacred art. God was ever at work in his people and in the New Covenant God was still dramatically at work in his people and performing great miracles among his people. So THE STORY CONTINUES in the New Testament church with the lives of the Saints and their heroic virtues they displayed with the grace and power of God. This is very dismaying to me about Protestants in that with the the STORY STOPS with the writing of St. John’s Apocalypse. No more great miracles, no more salvation history being written, no more great works of God on display in spite of the fact that Jesus told His disciples that even great miracles than He did would be accomplished through them. The Catholic Church CONTINUES THE STORY in a very seamless fashion in the liturgy and is absorbed into the memory of the Church.

Sorry for rambling, but it’s getting late …

MonFrere

Don’t be sorry. Your “ramblings” make more sense (and a better case for the Catholic position) than any one else posting on this thread. You are quite right about the importance of telling the continuing story of how God acts to save and redeem his people throughout all of history – even right up to the present – and not act like God suddenly stopped his work at the close of revelation. And you point about how that story was told not just through the written word, but also in art is something that had been lacking from this conversation. If we remember that the purpose for what we today call the scriptures is for communicating with the laity of the church who to live out their faith, and to undergird that effort, then a case could be made not just for including letters like Clement, Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermes, but the works of Michelangelo and DaVinci as being God’s gifts to the Church. But canon, as you point out, was in part necessitated by limiting the scope of what people in the Church referred to as being worth using as a measuring stick – a standard of faith and practice. And for reason that we shall leave in the hands of the early church they included Jude, but not Barnabas. They included the letters of Peter, but not Clement. They include Hebrews, but not Hermes. And they didn’t include lots of other things either. Should those non-canoncial works – the letters of Clement, Barnabas, Hermes – now be accepted as carrying the same weight as that which was determined to be scripture? Should the writings of Ignaitius, Irenaeus, Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa be accepted on par with the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Should we today change the standard by which we measure the rule of faith and practice?

When I people in this thread argue that the teachings which come from the office of the papacy and the teaching magesitrium of the Catholic Church is to be given as much credence as the Biblical writings so that they are to be received not just as interpretations and applications of the Bible, but as if they were themselves a sort of divine revelation, that to me sounds like saying YES, the post-biblica, non-canonical writings of the Church should be accepted on par with scripture itself. And if this is the case, then why bother saying that the canon is close. For if a writing is on par with scripture so as to in like manner be used as a measuring standard or rule for faith and practice, then there is no difference between it and the canon. Why stop at 73? Let’s keep counting for as long as the Catholic Church keeps writing.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I looked up all the scripture you quoted and I abide/ follow all of them. Yet, I am not Catholic.

St Paul expressly urges unity (Eph 4:3-6). He warns insistently against schism and heresy (1 Cor 1:10)

St Ignatius of Antioch(c. 107) “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

For St Cyril (c.315), the Catholic Church “is the proper name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, who is the Bride of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”

**The Church founded by Christ is catholic **(De fide)