It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[sandyelder]

It is interesting to read the many posts back and forth on this thread.

One thing that jumps out is that both sides deny the ability of God to speak to man and resolve the conflict. SS adherents say the Bible is the end of God’s direct dealings with humanity. SS ‘opponents’ claim the right to rest doctine on tradition and other extra-biblical sources; yet also deny that God can or would ever again directly speak to mankind (mutually exclusive, in my mind). Saying that the HS reveals truth or inspires fails when viewed in light of the Trinity, since the HS is God and would therefore be granting revelation.

So we are at an impasse. The Bible may seem to allude to SS, but the application of the particular verses in context raises doubt. If SS is invalid, what standard do we then use to judge the authority of extra-biblical doctrine or tradition? Especially, when we have ruled out revelation from God as a potiential primary source.

Furthermore, to take the ‘opponent’ argument one step further, why have not all traditions, doctrines and teaching now debated as extra-biblical not been canonized? Are they not of the same import as Paul’s letters? Or of Luke’s or John’s writings? Why are not Encyclicals considered scripture? Even within the RCC, there seems to be a bright line separating scripture from the rest. The question for ‘opponents’ of SS is “why”?

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, “The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth,” in order for sola scriptura to be true. Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles, of which they themselves approve when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.

When I taught Sola Scriptura to an adult Bible study class

I used theses for some good references

monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/

many of your points are addressed here

carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

once again: The RCC ( and therefore , you ) do not accept them

First deception: JW’s use a different Bible than Catholics and Protestants. JW’s don’t believe that Jesus is divine.2nd deception: Nothing the Catholic or Orthodox Churches teach contradicts itself or the Bible.
Nowhere does it say ALONE. Luke wrote the NT for Theolphilus, he did not write the OT. Luke did not write Paul’s letter to the Romans.
The NT wasn’t even written yet when Jesus said this. Jesus was referring to the OT

What does this mean?
The NT wasn’t even written yet when Jesus said this. Jesus was referring to the OT

ditto.

Red,
I am interested in your feedback on my response to you link to SS prooftext site in my post 565.

Thank you.

 

[joe370]

500 years ago did the RCC **disagree **with Luther in translating the Apostle Paul’s words as “justified by faith alone” or “sola fide” in the Latin

A yes or no question.

Red, you refuse to respond to my posts insisting that they are off topic. This is off topic but I will respond: NO!!! The RCC agrees with Martin Luther (the father of protestantism) - regarding faith in Christ alone, but faith without works is dead according to your bible. Only faith saves us, but faith without action kills us. This is a no brainer!

Still waiting…

 

[yankee_drifter]

Not every doctrine taught in Scripture is taught explicitly by book, chapter and verse. Many doctrines are taught by way of logical and necessary deduction. For instance the word ‘Trinity’ is not used in the Bible. Few would argue that the Trinity is not more implicitly taught than explicitly. The same may be said of the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer for justification. This doctrine surfaces in light of the overwhelming implicit evidence.

Even The RCC admits that the Bible is at least one part of the inspired Word of God.

So if you admit, that the Bible is at least one part of the divinely inspired Word of God, it seems incumbent upon Rome, which does not accept the Bible as the only Word of God, to bear the burden of proving there are other sources of equal weight.

Please prove that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove that Scripture and their Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Prove that other sources can be summoned to give “certainty about God’s revealed truth” other than the Bible alone.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Please prove that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove that Scripture and their Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Prove that other sources can be summoned to give “certainty about God’s revealed truth” other than the Bible alone.

Where did the Bible come from? Who put it together? Who decided which books were sacred? Why does the Latin Vulgate contain 7 more OT books than the Jewish Bible (Masoretic) texts?

 

[Lampo]

Please prove that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove that Scripture and their Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Prove that other sources can be summoned to give “certainty about God’s revealed truth” other than the Bible alone.

Taken from "23-April-2009 – Vatican Information Service
Bible: Divine Inspiration and Church Tradition

VATICAN CITY, 23 APR 2009 (VIS)"

“The interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be a merely an individual academic undertaking, but must always be compared with, inserted into, and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church. This norm is essential in order to ensure a correct and reciprocal exchange between exegesis and Church Magisterium. Catholic exegetes do not nourish the individualistic illusion that biblical texts can be better understood outside the community of believers. The opposite is true, because these texts were not given to individual scholars ‘to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research’. The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the community of believers, to the Church of Christ, to nourish the faith and to guide the life of charity”.

“Sacred Scripture is the Word of God in that its is written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Tradition, on the other hand, integrally transmits the Word of God as entrusted by Christ the Lord and by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and their successors so that they, illuminated by the Spirit of truth, could faithfully conserve, explain and spread it through their preaching”.

“Only within the ecclesial context can Sacred Scripture be understood as the authentic Word of God which is guide, norm and rule for the life of the Church and the spiritual development of believers. This means rejecting all interpretations that are subjective or limited to mere analysis [and hence] incapable of accepting the global meaning which, over the course of the centuries, has guided the Tradition of the entire people of God”.

Link

 

[qui_est_ce]

It is interesting to read the many posts back and forth on this thread.

One thing that jumps out is that both sides deny the ability of God to speak to man and resolve the conflict. SS adherents say the Bible is the end of God’s direct dealings with humanity. SS ‘opponents’ claim the right to rest doctine on tradition and other extra-biblical sources; yet also deny that God can or would ever again directly speak to mankind (mutually exclusive, in my mind).

This is NOT Catholic Teaching

So we are at an impasse. The Bible may seem to allude to SS, but the application of the particular verses in context raises doubt. If SS is invalid, what standard do we then use to judge the authority of extra-biblical doctrine or tradition? Especially, when we have ruled out revelation from God as a potiential primary source.

Who has ruled out revelation from God? The CC is based on Christ, the source of all Revelation.

Furthermore, to take the ‘opponent’ argument one step further, why have not all traditions, doctrines and teaching now debated as extra-biblical not been canonized? Are they not of the same import as Paul’s letters? Or of Luke’s or John’s writings? Why are not Encyclicals considered scripture? Even within the RCC, there seems to be a bright line separating scripture from the rest. The question for ‘opponents’ of SS is “why”?

Because we don’t worship the Bible. The Bible is a book, or a set of books, put together by men, under the inspiration of the HS. The Teachings of the Church came before a single word was written down. Jesus only wrote one time, according the Bible. That was when he wrote twice in the dirt at the stoning of the adulterous woman.

Do you know what he wrote? Do you know the symbolism of this?

 

[joe370]

**sandy, you said:
**
It is interesting to read the many posts back and forth on this thread.

One thing that jumps out is that both sides deny the ability of God to speak to man and resolve the conflict.

**Not true! God speaks to His church via the holy spirit, as per the holy bible. Can I prove this: NO. Do I believe this: YES. Why? faith!!! Jesus said: “Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe.”
**

SS adherents say the Bible is the end of God’s direct dealings with humanity.

**Not biblical at all. **

SS ‘opponents’ claim the right to rest doctrine on tradition and other extra-biblical sources

**Both sacred scripture and sacred tradition. Jesus said: I will build my church, and he sent the holy spirit to be with his bride to guide her and protect the deposit of faith, until his return. Belief is a matter of faith…
**

…yet also deny that God can or would ever again directly speak to mankind (mutually exclusive, in my mind).

**Does Jesus speak to his church the way I am speaking to you? NO! But He does guide her, albeit mystically. **

…Saying that the HS reveals truth or inspires fails when viewed in light of the Trinity, since the HS is God and would therefore be granting revelation.

**Quite dichotomous…The holy spirit will guide Jesus’ one church “forever.” It’s just that simple. Belief is faith! **

So we are at an impasse.

**Not at all. **

…The Bible may seem to allude to SS, but the application of the particular verses in context raises doubt.

The bible does not allude to SS.

…If SS is invalid, what standard do we then use to judge the authority of extra-biblical doctrine or tradition? Especially, when we have ruled out revelation from God as a potiential primary source.

**Jesus’ one church! Who ruled out revelation from God, other than non-Catholic churches?
**

Furthermore, to take the ‘opponent’ argument one step further, why have not all traditions, doctrines and teaching now debated as extra-biblical not been canonized?

**Jesus’ church, the CC established the canon: sacred scripture and sacred tradition. **

…are not Encyclicals considered scripture?

**These are letters treating some aspect of Catholic doctrine. Can we trust them? Well, can we trust the holy spirit, Who is guiding Jesus’ church and safeguarding the deposit of faith? **

…Even within the RCC, there seems to be a bright line separating scripture from the rest. The question for ‘opponents’ of SS is “why”?

**Not according to the CC. Sacred scripture and sacred tradition make up the deposit of faith, and the holy spirit is safeguarding the deposit of faith until the end of time, and as Jesus said: belief is faith. SS is not an option. SS makes everyone the authoritative teacher which has divided Jesus’ one church. Jesus gave his authority to his church alone, and promised to be with his bride forever. How He guides her and safeguards truth be it sacred scripture or sacred tradition is beyond my scope. But I do have faith in Jesus’ church. **

 

[qui_est_ce]

joe370:
My post beat yours!

 

[joe370]

My post beat yours!

LOL…

 

[MariaG]

the issue with discussing SS in this forum is that SS does not exist by itself in a vacuum:

discussions that involve Sola fide, Sola gratia,Solus Christus, or Soli Deo gloria and the infallibility of the Pope or Tradition or interpretation are considered off topic.

so while there is no SS (just like the Trinity) scripture , that does not mean it is not Biblical

The case for the doctrine SS has been provided.

the “If…then …and therefore” don’t convince you, then nothing will.

reminds me of the “did Mary have other children?” debate; regardless of many “brothers ans sisters of the Lord” verses are presented, it won’t change anyone’s mind

If the RCC wasn’t convinced that some of their traditions were un- biblcal 500 years ago, then they won’t do it today either.

Also shows that no matter how many times other scripture is presented that contradicts your understanding, like the proof that those brothers and sisters were not in fact the uterine brothers and sisters of Christ, that you are unwilling to believe you could be wrong in your interpretation of Scripture.

Again, lots of scripture telling us how valuable scripture is, how profitable, and lots of scripture telling us who to take our disputes to, the Church. Ironically, scripture alone shows the falsehood of Scripture alone no matter how you define it.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

**‘By means of …Tradition the full canon of the sacred books is known to the Church and the holy Scriptures themselves are more thoroughly understood and contantly actualized in the Church. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are, then, bound closely together, and communicate one with the other’ **(Dei Verbum: The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 2 Vatican Council)

 

[clmowry]

Not every doctrine taught in Scripture is taught explicitly by book, chapter and verse. Many doctrines are taught by way of logical and necessary deduction. For instance the word ‘Trinity’ is not used in the Bible. Few would argue that the Trinity is not more implicitly taught than explicitly. The same may be said of the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer for justification. This doctrine surfaces in light of the overwhelming implicit evidence.

Even The RCC admits that the Bible is at least one part of the inspired Word of God.

So if you admit, that the Bible is at least one part of the divinely inspired Word of God, it seems incumbent upon Rome, which does not accept the Bible as the only Word of God, to bear the burden of proving there are other sources of equal weight.

Please prove that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove that Scripture and their Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Prove that other sources can be summoned to give “certainty about God’s revealed truth” other than the Bible alone.

Seems like everybody’s abandoned trying to prove that all doctrine must come from scripture.

So sounds like a wonderful start for another thread.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

LOL…

I skipped replying before I even saw your replies because I knew you’d take care of it.

So I win

Chuck

 

[sandyelder]

While all y’all are back-slapping and high-fiving, can one or all or any of you please reconcile CCC 73 with your assertion that the HS, who is God, reveals anything anymore. If God is fully revealed in the Son, what more is there to reveal? And, if there is more, why would he not do it via a prophet (CCC 72)? One can not credibly claim the error of SS while also denying the continuance of revelation. One also can not credibly claim the HS mystically guides the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance constitutes revelation. Furthermore, if the HS is guiding the RCC, why would not God himself, at least on occasion, grant such revelation in the form and manner he used with Moses, Abraham, et al?

If one disputes SS, one must accept continuing revelation. If one disputes the reality of continuing revelation, SS is the only option, regardless of how the canon came to be. Therefore, impasse.

 

[Church_Militant]

While all y’all are back-slapping and high-fiving, can one or all or any of you please reconcile CCC 73 with your assertion that the HS, who is God, reveals anything anymore. If God is fully revealed in the Son, what more is there to reveal? And, if there is more, why would he not do it via a prophet (CCC 72)? One can not credibly claim the error of SS while also denying the continuance of revelation. One also can not credibly claim the HS mystically guides the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance constitutes revelation. Furthermore, if the HS is guiding the RCC, why would not God himself, at least on occasion, grant such revelation in the form and manner he used with Moses, Abraham, et al?

If one disputes SS, one must accept continuing revelation. If one disputes the reality of continuing revelation, SS is the only option, regardless of how the canon came to be. Therefore, impasse.

CCC 72-73? Better check what you are citing.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.
73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

We have never said, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that there is any new public revelation. We have had no such revelations at all and have never claimed to have had any. Our understanding of what we have had revealed is a living and constantly growing aspect of the Christian life (Hebrews 5:12-14) as the Holy Spirit works within His Church, guiding into all truth, (John 16:13) and insuring that, though constantly under assault by the enemies of God, the gates of Hell never prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Still, no one has shown me where the Bible tells me that everything that I believe and practice as a Christian, must be found in its pages. If such scripture exists, and not the interpretations of men using proof texts that do not say what they assert they do, then where are they? :ehh:

There appears to be a kind of circle here.

Some n-Cs: “The Bible is the sole and ultimate authority for all that Christians believe and practice and if it’s not in the Bible then it’s wrong.”

Me: Fine, where is that stated in the Bible?

(Crickets chirping softly in the silence)

Some n-Cs: Sudden outburst of scripture citations intermingled with interpretations of men asserting that they mean something that the texts do not say.

Me: "Look, you guys told me many times that this was something that the Bible teaches, but at this point I’m seeing extra Biblical opinions and interpretations of men but not one of these passages says what you guys have told me they do.

Doesn’t that make this something that even by Sola Scriptura (or even Prima Scriptura) standards should be rejected as unscriptural?"

*(Crickets resume chirping softly in the silence)
*

 

[Caramel]

A very interesting series of points Servant! Thanks!

(How was lunch? General Tso’s chicken? LOVE that stuff!)

Further…if these things you offer are not found in scripture, should they be part of their community ministry? Is this a contradiction?

Here again, the question remains.

Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?

No, the Bible (almost typed Bubble there) does not say anywhere that everything has to be in it. Even I know that!! And I hardly know anything about the Bible. It’s so obvious and yet people keep on saying it over and over. It must be confusing to live as a Christian and base all your behavior on the Bible.

 

[joe370]

Sandy, you said:

**While all y’all are back-slapping and high-fiving, can one or all or any of you please reconcile CCC 73 with your assertion that the HS, who is God, reveals anything anymore.
**

What’s wrong with a little high-fiving? We are just happy to belong to the church built by Jesus, to which he is the head and savior, forever guided by the holy spirit, as per sacred scripture. If I am wrong about the CC being the church built by God, perhaps you could tell me who built the CC?

CCC - “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

“Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.”

Everything believed today by the CC was believed by the CC in the very beginning. It wasn’t usually defined until someone attempted to discredit it, eg - the Trinity. The early church believed it but she didn’t define it until the 4th century, due to heretical movements. As a former Lutheran I was quite surprised because I was told that the CC fabricates doctrine as they go along. Turns out it was my former Lutheran church which was spearheaded By Martin Luther, who gave the protestant world the man-made doctrine sola scriptura, sola fida… A quick once over of the Catholic church dispels any notion that the CC established any doctrine unknown to the early church.

** If God is fully revealed in the Son, what more is there to reveal?
**

Nothing more to reveal; just to protect and guard against heretical movements. Do you believe that the holy spirit will be with Jesus’ church forever, if so, then what does that mean to you?

**And, if there is more, why would he not do it via a prophet (CCC 72)?
**

There are no more new revelations…

**One can not credibly claim the error of SS while also denying the continuance of revelation.
**

The CC teaches that revelation is closed; SS is a man-made revelation developed out of extreme repudiation for the CC by the men that spearheaded the so called reformation. Where in the heck can I find this one reformed church established by men as opposed to God?

**One also can not credibly claim the HS mystically guides the RCC without acknowledging that such guidance constitutes revelation. **

Again, no new revelation. The holy spirit guards and protects the deposit of faith from within and without. There were times in history when emperors usurped the spiritual authority of various popes, bishops and abbots by imprisoning them. The miracle is the fact that these bad men did not change the deposit of faith. A coincidence: NO! That is the power of the holy spirit working through the bride of Christ.

Furthermore, if the HS is guiding the RCC, why would not God himself, at least on occasion, grant such revelation in the form and manner he used with Moses, Abraham, et al?

**like YOU SAID: nothing more to reveal; just to protect from doctrinal inroads! **

**If one disputes SS, one must accept continuing revelation. **

So, you are saying: If the CC rejects the man-made revelation - SS, then she must accept continuing revelation? Revelation was closed during the apostolic age; the reformers added new revelations such as the 5 sola’s.

If one disputes the reality of continuing revelation, SS is the only option,

Are saying that the CC, which disputes the reality of continuing revelation, must embrace the only other option - that being SS? Not following you at all! Perhaps you could expound! I am very tired; perhaps that is the problem! Revelation ended. SS is a propagated man-made revelation, stemming from the reformation.

**…regardless of how the canon came to be. Therefore, impasse.
**

I don’t see the impasse…

 

[yankee_drifter]

I wrote:

Please prove that Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium are so closely connected that one cannot stand without the others. Prove that Scripture and their Tradition and Magisterium must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments. Prove that other sources can be summoned to give “certainty about God’s revealed truth” other than the Bible alone.

quoted from qui est ce:

Where did the Bible come from? Who put it together? Who decided which books were sacred? Why does the Latin Vulgate contain 7 more OT books than the Jewish Bible (Masoretic) texts?

You didn’t answer my questions, only posed some of your own, but that’s ok.

The Bible did not come from the RCC. None of the NT writers were roman catholic. The Holy Bible was authored by the Holy Spirit. It alone is “God-Breathed” which means from the very mouth of God. Paul’s writings, for example, were considered scripture. (Read 1 Cor. 14:37)

The RCC did not decide what books were “Scripture,” there merely was a council which convened to put together the books which were already considered scripture.

The RCC declares the scriptures were officially canonized at the Council of Hippo in 390 AD. But they have some problems with this.

First, who ever said the Council of Hippo was a Roman Catholic council? It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it. Second, we see from recorded christian history that many years before Hippo in 390 AD, the scriptures were already recognized.

315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.

1. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.

185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

100-147. Justin Martyr,** mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.**

The Latin Vulgate has extra books which were never a part of the Hebrew Scriptures.The Apostle Paul declared that the “Oracles of God” were committed to the Jews. (Rom. 3:1,2; 9:4,5) They had the scriptures in its purity. Even Jerome said the apocrypha did not belong in the Bible. The RCC added these uninspired spurious books as a counter reaction to the Reformation.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Lampo wrote:

Quote:
Taken from "23-April-2009 – Vatican Information Service
Bible: Divine Inspiration and Church Tradition

VATICAN CITY, 23 APR 2009 (VIS)"

“The interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be a merely an individual academic undertaking, but must always be compared with, inserted into, and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church. This norm is essential in order to ensure a correct and reciprocal exchange between exegesis and Church Magisterium. Catholic exegetes do not nourish the individualistic illusion that biblical texts can be better understood outside the community of believers. The opposite is true, because these texts were not given to individual scholars ‘to satisfy their curiosity or to provide them with material for study and research’. The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the community of believers, to the Church of Christ, to nourish the faith and to guide the life of charity”.

John 2:27 But the anointing (Holy Spirit) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and** ye need not that any man teach you**: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

2 Peter 1:19-20 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that** no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.**

Does the roman catholic magesterium believe it knows more than the Holy Spirit who authored the Holy Scriptures?