Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[IggyAntiochus]

I feel it boils down to our function as human beings, and we operate within a paradigm that God has ordained!

Yes, which is not Cartesian!

I understand the logic, my contention is that we are bound within the context of our being. Our Knowledge is in direct relationship to our inborn created being. Our Function of creation is to love and serve God. I believe that God gave us a Church, Her function is to be a conduit of Grace!

I agree.

Submitting to God is a function of the Church, and us submitting to the Church is our function. Us submitting to the Church is submitting to God, being that we are living out our function as created beings in doing so!

I agree; with the caveat that there have been and will be times when one must disobey what the majority in the church may be advocating in order to submit to God.

I believe the function of the Church is to make Christ present, and Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are a Mode of the Church, in Her function.

Her only function, in her office of proclaiming Law and Gospel, is to make Christ present!

Vis a vie sacred tradition, I don’t disagree that tradition, rightly understood as the proclamation of apostolic doctrine, is the word of God. Where the disagreement has been and always will be is whether the doctrine in question is apostolic. That’s ultimately the question, not whether tradition is authoritative or not. That’s just a side issue that tends to be focused on more by the Reformed sects.

I do not think that God used the Church to deliver the Scriptures to man, so that man may recognize his function as a created being in the Scriptures, apart from the Church.

I agree. None of the above, however, necessitates that the Church be infallible, only that her witness and message reflect the revelation given to her by the apostles. God is capable of sorting out the rest.

Absolutely, but positing God’s existence in not circular, and I wouldn’t call it a presupposition, being that we were created for the very purpose to Love Him, as I see it anyway!

It’s a problem if you start with God’s existence, because that makes it circular. The only one that can presuppose His existence is Him! (Which is what He does in Scripture; Genesis, for example.) What God has done for us is imprinted in us as well as in nature that He exists (Evidentialism is exceptional at detailing this, ala Aquinas), and has gone even further than that by revealing Himself to us through special revelation.

Unless you’re John Dominic Crossan of course lol.

Crossan needs to recognize himself first.

We posit God just is, man just suppresses the knowledge we have that is lies in us already, I suppose. Try telling that to an atheist though! lol

Peace and Love in Christ

Yes, that is key. God has left sufficient evidence to recognize Him. Everyone does recognize Him…and they suppress and deny it.

Ultimately, we go to the resurrection. This proves everything else. It proves the Scriptures.

 

[onemangang]

I agree. None of the above, however, necessitates that the Church be infallible, only that her witness and message reflect the revelation given to her by the apostles. God is capable of sorting out the rest. :

I agree with necessitates, although I accept that She is obviously!

It’s a problem if you start with God’s existence, because that makes it circular. The only one that can presuppose His existence is Him! (Which is what He does in Scripture; Genesis, for example.)** What God has done for us is imprinted in us as well as in nature that He exists** (Evidentialism is exceptional at detailing this, ala Aquinas), and has gone even further than that by revealing Himself to us through special revelation.

Well put Thank you!

Peace and Love in Christ!

 

[CopticChristian]

**I don’t understand **how copy-pasting the defintion of the Greek word that is used in the verse I reference changes anything.

Are you really saying that declaring or announcing beforehand has nothing to do with speaking!? And if you aren’t okay with me using the word, “spoke” (not that it necessarily matters), I could have rendered it, “Scripture preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham” and you’d still be wrong.

At the end of the day, Scripture was still the one doing the declaring or announcing and Abraham was doing the hearing.

And here is Romans 9:17 as rendered in the King James Translation…

(KJV)Romans 9:17 - For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh

When was Abraham and Pharoah living in this world and when was Scripture written?

Scripture was known before it was written.

Of,

You state you do not understand. This is good. I appreciate this as opposed to what you wrote earlier as follows.

You don’t even have a relevantly adequate grasp on my view (not that you could penetrate it if you did) or of Scripture.

You have admitted that your communication skills are not excellent and that is good to.

May I ask you this. What is your point in the issue as to your interpretation of Romans 9:17? Are you saying that Scripture was spoken before it was written or am I missing something that you believe is important.

Explain this to me.

If you have not noticed, as opposed to Cheung, that I believe you admire, the stroke of genius is to take something complicated and make it simple.

This computer you sit at has gone through modifications so that it is easier and easier to use so that consumers can easily access and use them. The genius behind this is that it wasn’t to make it more complicated and difficult and to make it impossible to use, rather to simplify it and make it user friendly. This is genius.

If you doubt me then you should read books like…Strategies of Genius, by Robert Dilts…examining how geniuses think so that we may learn from them and develop our own genius. I see Cheung as someone setting himself up to be some ethereal guru that only he understands. He does not simplify.

If you still have questions then turn to the Master communicator Jesus. The Kingdom of God is like this…and he told us bedtime stories. We think in pictures and the Lord painted pictures for us to understand what God wants us to know.

 

[ofthesons]

Are you infallibly interpreting those particular passages, or not?

If you are only fallibly interpreting them, why should anybody listen to you, and your fallible interpretation?

To me, there appears a kind of ambiguity to your first question in this post and a possible equivocation. This is why I don’t give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers when presented with certain kinds of questions. Are you asking if my interpretation is infallible or do I interpret the passage as a fallible person? Whether I answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depends on which one of these you are asking. Or maybe you’re asking if the act of interpreting is infallible.

If my interpretation is true, then it is infallible by definition.

For the sake of this discussion, I will say I interpret the passage as a fallible person.

Whether or not the actual act of interpreting is infallible depends on whether or not I’m adhering to the infallible first principle, which is Scripture. Since I am a fallible person, then I will get things wrong. But since I have knowledge as to what Scripture says (which would mean that Scripture is revealed unto me), it necessarily follows that I get things right.

Now, I know you deny that Scripture is the first principle since you’re not a Sola Scripturist. So when you say that Christ revealed himself through the Church (supposedly to answer the question of epistemology), how do you know that? Do you have a first principle with which you conclude that Christ revealed himself? I don’t see how you could have “one” if you happen to believe that a Sola Scripturist must resort to circular reasoning in order to attempt to defend his belief in Scripture. Is it simply because the Catholic Church said so. How do you know the Catholic Church said so? And how do you know you can trust the Catholic Church?

 

[Phineas]

**

**You are absolutely right about the Protestant churches falling away and instituting
traditions contrary to the word of God. They are no longer sola scriptura and they have substituted their traditions for the word of God.

 

[CopticChristian]

**

Coptic,
Well, let me post in 2 parts. This first part will be to establish the faith I have in God’s preservation of the scriptures so that any man or woman who relies on the help of the Holy Spirit can reason clearly what is truth and what is false doctrine. If one does not have faith in the Bible , including the New Testament as the inspired word of God, then his/her doctrine will come from the will of men and can be as varied as man’s imagination can make it.

In the second post I will show how many modern day Protestant and Catholic doctrines boldly contradict scripture.

At the time of Christ the OT was rather firmly established and written almost entirely in Hebrew with just a few chapter in Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah written in Aramaic.**

Since then the Hebrew scriptures have been kept in tact by the Jews in transmitting them in perfect Hebrew until the first printings in the mid 1400’s. The best Bible translations into English are those that translated directly from
the Masoretic text which scholars consider the most reliable Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament translations are another story. The original writings of the New testament were written in Greek and the originals are lost now and reproductions are what is left. Through the centuries disputes have arisen as to which of these manuscripts closely follow the originals and which have been corrupted. From my study , I am most comfortable with the KJV ( not the NKJV). However, I know, by faith in God’s plan, that He has kept most English Bibles written before the 19th Century pure enough that a sincere man reading them will learn as did Timothy (with just the OT) of the salvation that is from faith in Christ alone.( See 2 Tim 3:15)

I also believe, as every Christian should, that all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for doctrine, and that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the early church fathers were inspired to include in the New Testament only those writings of the Apostles which God deemed essential for our spiritual growth, and as a truth detector against spurious doctrines that Satan would try to bring in among Christians to unsettle the faith.
Isaiah said it well when referring to the OT: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.” Isa 8:20

The Psalms said of God’s word:
Thy law is the truth (Psm 119:142).
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psm 119:89
Thy word [is] a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psm 119:105
Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: Psm119:160

Jesus said it best :
" Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17.

In light of the above, any doctrine or custom or tradition that contradicts the law or the inspired testimonies of the Bible writers should be rejected out of hand.

In a succeeding post I will list some of the most egregious unscriptural doctrines now promulgating through various Christian denominations . I would ask that in your objections to my statements you give me sound scriptural reasoning and not personal attacks on my character or motives.

PS
As for Oecolampadius: What he said about the Bible as our spiritual constitution is pure Sola Scriptura. Now whether he followed that in practice is another story. But his doctrines or beliefs carry no weight with a Christian if they contradict the inspired word of God.

Phin,

You posit that the Bible was written in Hebrew. This is contrary to the fact that God wanted the world to know his Word and the Bible was translated into Greek and that is the Bible that was used long before anyone translated the masoretic text into English. If you believe this then account for the fact that all immediate English Translations included the Deuterocanonicals.

Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale’s first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611).

The Septuagint
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
Codes Ephraemi Rescriptus

1384 Wycliffe Bible
1534 Luther’s German Bible
1537 The Cloverdale Bible
1539 The Taverner Bible
1541 The “Great” or “Cromwell’s” Bible
1551 The “Tyndale/Matthews” Bible
1560 The Geneva Bible
1568 The Bishop’s Bible

You posit that the Fathers affirmed the Bible as we know it. Time, date, persons that did this please.

 

[stewstew03]

…However, I know, by faith in God’s plan, that He has kept most English Bibles written before the 19th Century pure enough that a sincere man reading them will learn as did Timothy (with just the OT) of the salvation that is from faith in Christ alone.( See 2 Tim 3:15)

Protestantism is mighty cruel toward the illiterate and mentally handicapped… I guess Heaven is full of learned folks who can read and understand English!

 

[onemangang]

To me, there appears a kind of ambiguity to your first question in this post and a possible equivocation. This is why I don’t give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers when presented with certain kinds of questions. Are you asking if my interpretation is infallible or do I interpret the passage as a fallible person? Whether I answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depends on which one of these you are asking. Or maybe you’re asking if the act of interpreting is infallible.

Ok, is your interpretation of the Scripture in question an infallible interpretation?

How do you know that?

How do you know the Scriptures are infallible?

If my interpretation is true, then it is infallible by definition.

How would you know, it’s true?

For the sake of this discussion, I will say I interpret the passage as a fallible person.

Ok, an answer. If you interpret it correctly, your answer would be above reproach and infallible.

If you are wrong, you are fallible people, falling short, just like me

Whether or not the actual act of interpreting is infallible depends on whether or not I’m adhering to the infallible first principle, which is Scripture.

How do you know Scripture is infallible?

Since I am a fallible person, then I will get things wrong. But since I have knowledge as to what Scripture says (which would mean that Scripture is revealed unto me), it necessarily follows that I get things right.

Wow, who am I to argue with a man which gets things right!

Do you get things right all of the time, or part of the time?

How do you know you “get things right”?

Now, I know you deny that Scripture is the first principle since you’re not a Sola Scripturist.

Correct, God is the first principle, Church is principled in relation to God and Scripture is a mode of the Church, to conferr God’s Grace, through Him, with Him, and In Him!

So when you say that Christ revealed himself through the Church (supposedly to answer the question of epistemology), how do you know that?

Because, it is the Church who has made Christ present from the beginning! Because the Scriptures bear witness, and the universe declares it. Because I was created for the very purpose of Knowing and Loving God! If I had to list each reason, it would be a long list, that catalogs my entire life experiences and formulation of knowledge. All of which are by Grace!!!

Do you have a first principle with which you conclude that Christ revealed himself?

God is the first principle, the Church is principled, in relation to Her creator. Jesus actions and words bear witness that He is God, and He chose a social order (a Church) to dispense the reality that He is indeed, who He claims to be! God has revealed Himself to man through the Person of Jesus Christ, He has proven Himself to be, Who He said He is. He needs no proof, but by grace, and Love He has condescended to reach mankind, for our sake, because of His undying Love. The Church is the Social Order that He founded, and She has proven Herself to be, who HE SAYS SHE IS. The bible bears witness of that, miracles attest it, the world recognizes it, yet suppress it, just as they do, the One Who sent Her.

I don’t see how you could have “one” if you happen to believe that a Sola Scripturist must resort to circular reasoning in order to attempt to defend his belief in Scripture.

I never called presuppositionalism circular reasoning, although if you posit Scripture is the first principle then I would.

If you posit Sola Scriptura, and reject the Church (big C) then I think you are missing an important element to the very function you were created for. You, I and ALL men, were created to receive the manifold wisdom of God through the Church, so that we may Know Him and Love Him. He has made Her a conduit of His Grace, and His Mercy, out of love, so that we may posses the fullness of His Revelation to mankind, and one day that will be complete in Her, His Bride!

Is it simply because the Catholic Church said so. How do you know the Catholic Church said so? And how do you know you can trust the Catholic Church?

It is because God said so, through Her, and promised His Bride, Himself.

Peace be with you!

 

[CopticChristian]

To me, there appears a kind of ambiguity to your first question in this post and a possible equivocation. This is why I don’t give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers when presented with certain kinds of questions. Are you asking if my interpretation is infallible or do I interpret the passage as a fallible person? Whether I answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ depends on which one of these you are asking. Or maybe you’re asking if the act of interpreting is infallible.

If my interpretation is true, then it is infallible by definition.

For the sake of this discussion, I will say I interpret the passage as a fallible person.

Whether or not the actual act of interpreting is infallible depends on whether or not I’m adhering to the infallible first principle, which is Scripture. Since I am a fallible person, then I will get things wrong. **But since I have knowledge as to what Scripture says (which would mean that Scripture is revealed unto me), it necessarily follows that I get things right. **
Now, I know you deny that Scripture is the first principle since you’re not a Sola Scripturist. So when you say that Christ revealed himself through the Church (supposedly to answer the question of epistemology), how do you know that? Do you have a first principle with which you conclude that Christ revealed himself? I don’t see how you could have “one” if you happen to believe that a Sola Scripturist must resort to circular reasoning in order to attempt to defend his belief in Scripture. Is it simply because the Catholic Church said so. How do you know the Catholic Church said so? And how do you know you can trust the Catholic Church?

Of,

Wow you found the key to unlock the treasures of Holy Writ. Knowledge is the key that allows you to get things right. Since you believe you have this knowledge and you believe that this knowledge allows you to things right it should be simple to impart a simple explanation as to how you got this knowledge and straighten out this whole mess of PedoBapstism or CredoBaptism. Since you have knowledge and get it right let me know how we clear this mess up. Where did you get this knowledge?

Vincent Cheung logic is easily unwound. I suggest you give up believing that anyone is going to engage in a Vincent Cheung imitator discussion. Imitation of Cheung is poor at best. You should ask Chueng to come on over and discuss some simple things with us.

Let me ask you one question. Is the Bible the only place you can know about God, since you seem to parrot what Cheung says, ie true knowledge is directly stated in Scripture which you admit you cannot prove is true and the other source of true knowledge is what you can deduce from Scripture.

So in summary does God tell you that the only place we can know about God is in the Bible? You are saying that it is not evident to us or in us but only in the Bible? Correct. The only way to know the attributes and divine nature of God is by direct knowledge or deduction from the Bible. Is that correct? Tell me if this is true for you.

If this is something you think I should believe and know I don’t want to go around making excuses about why I don’t know this because you say it is in the Bible.

 

[ofthesons]

May I ask you this. What is your point in the issue as to your interpretation of Romans 9:17? Are you saying that Scripture was spoken before it was written or am I missing something that you believe is important.

Yes, I’m saying that Scripture was spoken before it was written.

Explain this to me.

A consistent belief in Sola Scriptura says that whatever obligation or warrant that one has to believe or do anything (even to interpret Scripture, keep to certain traditions, or believe what’s not stated in Scripture), it must be given by Scripture. If this is true, it follows that you cannot have the Church without Scripture.

To answer your question, one of the main reasons I reference Gal 3:8 and Rom 9:17 to point out that Scripture existed and was revealed prior to when it was written was because of the tendency for people to say that it’s possible for the Church to exist and to function without Scripture as revealed in the New Testament. The reason they say this is to show that it is the Church who determines Scripture and not the other way around (At least, that’s my understanding). What they reference as backup for their assertion is that the New Testament wasn’t even written until some time after the establishing of the Church. It is at this point that I reference Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 to show that the fact that it wasn’t written is no reason to infer that it was not already known or presupposed.

At some point in this thread, it was stated that God is the ultimate authority in disagreement with my claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority…

ofthesons;9181700:

But the bottom line, Scripture has always been the ultimate authority even when the Church had not been established and as I’ve said, even when Scripture was not yet written!

No, God is the ultimate Authority and, He is not limited to Scripture.

At another point, I was challenged to reference a specific verse in which Jesus states that Scripture is the ultimate authority…

Chapter and verse where Jesus explicitly teaches Scripture has always been the ultimate authority before He founded His Church and before it was written?

In response to both of these quotes, I submit the following.

Even God must think and act in accordance with Scripture (his Word, Truth), because he is consistent and rational. He cannot deny or contradict himself. He cannot say or think one thing and do something else. For as much as Scripture is the word of God to man, it is the word of God to himself. Therefore what is revealed to man in Scripture in time is known by God from eternity past as we all well know.

On the other hand, since Scripture is the word of God, then it is dependent on God. So when I say that even God must think and act according to Scripture (his word, truth), there is no reason to conclude that I’m saying that Scripture is a greater authority than God. If God must think and act according to Scripture, then he must think and act according to himself since Scripture is contingent on God. So Scripture as the ultimate authority is God’s authority and that which you cannot disassociate from him.

With man -yes, even with the Church- it is a different story. Naturally, apart from God’s grace, we don’t act and think in accordance with Scripture, because we disobey it and we misunderstanding it. We are naturally unavoidably at variance with it and thus we are at variance with God. If we think and act as we should, then we still must be thinking and acting according to God’s word (Scripture).

Why in the world should we think and act in accordance with God’s word!? Because God (or Scripture) said so! This is my epistemology.

We need to correctly interpret what God said, but not without ultimately obeying what God said. For the truth (which is God’s word) is authenticated by the truth. Is this circular reasoning? I posit that, unlike what Bahnsen would have one believe, it is axiomatic reasoning and Scripture is the axiom.

This computer you sit at has gone through modifications so that it is easier and easier to use so that consumers can easily access and use them. The genius behind this is that it wasn’t to make it more complicated and difficult and to make it impossible to use, rather to simplify it and make it user friendly. This is genius.

I agree

I see Cheung as someone setting himself up to be some ethereal guru that only he understands. He does not simplify.

I disagree. Maybe I’ll elaborate later.

God bless!

 

[ofthesons]

I’ll respond to other posts that were addressed to me when I get a chance, but I’m sure you guys already know that.

 

[Farsight001]

Yes, I’m saying that Scripture was spoken before it was written.

A consistent belief in Sola Scriptura says that whatever obligation or warrant that one has to believe or do anything (even to interpret Scripture, keep to certain traditions, or believe what’s not stated in Scripture), it must be given by Scripture. If this is true, it follows that you cannot have the Church without Scripture.

If this is true, it also follows that the statement teaching sola scriptura must be given by scripture as well.

 

[ofthesons]

I suggest you give up believing that anyone is going to engage in a Vincent Cheung imitator discussion. Imitation of Cheung is poor at best.

I tend to do things differently than Cheung, but if our beliefs are largely simliar, then we are going to do some of the same things as well.

I’ve learned from him as I have others, but I still think for myself.

 

[ofthesons]

If this is true, it also follows that the statement teaching sola scriptura must be given by scripture as well.

Well, what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I’m saying that Scripture was spoken before it was written.

A consistent belief in Sola Scriptura says that whatever obligation or warrant that one has to believe or do anything (even to interpret Scripture, keep to certain traditions, or believe what’s not stated in Scripture), it must be given by Scripture. If this is true, it follows that you cannot have the Church without Scripture.

To answer your question, one of the main reasons I reference Gal 3:8 and Rom 9:17 to point out that Scripture existed and was revealed prior to when it was written was because of the tendency for people to say that it’s possible for the Church to exist and to function without Scripture as revealed in the New Testament. The reason they say this is to show that it is the Church who determines Scripture and not the other way around (At least, that’s my understanding). What they reference as backup for their assertion is that the New Testament wasn’t even written until some time after the establishing of the Church. It is at this point that I reference Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 to show that the fact that it wasn’t written is no reason to infer that it was not already known or presupposed.

At some point in this thread, it was stated that God is the ultimate authority in disagreement with my claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority…

At another point, I was challenged to reference a specific verse in which Jesus states that Scripture is the ultimate authority…

In response to both of these quotes, I submit the following.

Even God must think and act in accordance with Scripture (his Word, Truth), because he is consistent and rational. He cannot deny or contradict himself. He cannot say or think one thing and do something else. For as much as Scripture is the word of God to man, it is the word of God to himself. Therefore what is revealed to man in Scripture in time is known by God from eternity past as we all well know.

On the other hand, since Scripture is the word of God, then it is dependent on God. So when I say that even God must think and act according to Scripture (his word, truth), there is no reason to conclude that I’m saying that Scripture is a greater authority than God. If God must think and act according to Scripture, then he must think and act according to himself since Scripture is contingent on God. So Scripture as the ultimate authority is God’s authority and that which you cannot disassociate from him.

With man -yes, even with the Church- it is a different story. Naturally, apart from God’s grace, we don’t act and think in accordance with Scripture, because we disobey it and we misunderstanding it. We are naturally unavoidably at variance with it and thus we are at variance with God. If we think and act as we should, then we still must be thinking and acting according to God’s word (Scripture).

Why in the world should we think and act in accordance with God’s word!? Because God (or Scripture) said so! This is my epistemology.

We need to correctly interpret what God said, but not without ultimately obeying what God said. For the truth (which is God’s word) is authenticated by the truth. Is this circular reasoning? I posit that, unlike what Bahnsen would have one believe, it is axiomatic reasoning and Scripture is the axiom.

I agree

I disagree. Maybe I’ll elaborate later.

God bless!

Of,

You must reconcile this with the Church as the mystery hidden for all ages…believing that the Church just appeared…it was always there just hidden. So how does that unknowing as to when it came into existence, for it was hidden for all ages, suggesting that the Body of Christ was around for a long time and it was revealed, affect your thinking?

Not to mention of course that the manifold wisdom of God is known through the Church upsets your apple cart of Scripture and God…

By the way Calvin and John Chrysostom say that Romans 9:17 is just a quote from Exodus. It stands to reason that anything that was written was Scripture and was not Scripture until written and that anything spoken prior to being written as you say was valid as Scripture supports an Oral Tradition. Thank you for that one.

Help me out here, throw me a bone. Just answer this…

So in summary does God tell you that the only place we can know about God is in the Bible? You are saying that it is not evident to us or in us but only in the Bible? Correct. The only way to know the attributes and divine nature of God is by direct knowledge or deduction from the Bible. Is that correct? Tell me if this is true for you?

 

[Farsight001]

Well, what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

That it’s not in the bible. And since, as you explained above, sola scripture teaches that all beliefs must be taught in the bible, it is therefore self-contradictory.

 

[ofthesons]

Of,

You must reconcile this with the Church as the mystery hidden for all ages…believing that the Church just appeared…it was always there just hidden. So how does that unknowing as to when it came into existence, for it was hidden for all ages, suggesting that the Body of Christ was around for a long time and it was revealed, affect your thinking?

Was the Church always infallible? Does an entity have to be infallible in order to know the word of God under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit?

And again, I reference Rom 9:17 and Gal 3:8 to stress that Scripture was known before it was written in response to those that assume that that’s impossible.

Truth was known as the justification of Truth (God’s Word). If Scripture justifies Truth as we could expect it to since it is Truth itself, then we know Scripture. And having a knowedge of Truth as a self-authenticating principle, we have a sufficient reason to believe in Scripture (Truth).

Not to mention of course that the manifold wisdom of God is known through the Church upsets your apple cart of Scripture and God…

How?

By the way Calvin and John Chrysostom say that Romans 9:17 is just a quote from Exodus. It stands to reason that anything that was written was Scripture and was not Scripture until written and that anything spoken prior to being written as you say was valid as Scripture supports an Oral Tradition. Thank you for that one.

You’re welcome, but my ultimate authority is not Calvin or Chrysostom.

So in summary does God tell you that the only place we can know about God is in the Bible?

Of course not, but you cannot know anything without the Bible as it is foundational.

You are saying that it is not evident to us or in us but only in the Bible? Correct.

If I understand you correctly, no, I’m not saying that.

The only way to know the attributes and divine nature of God is by direct knowledge or deduction from the Bible. Is that correct? Tell me if this is true for you?

Know it isn’t true. We know what we know in light of the Bible. God’s word is light.

I gotta go. I’ll be back.

 

[onemangang]

ofthesons, It sounds like you are saying the Logos is Scripture and Scripture is God?

Who (or what) is the Logos in the gospel according to St. John Chapter One?

 

[stewstew03]

…So Scripture as the ultimate authority is God’s authority…

This is otherwise known as bibliolatry.

 

[ofthesons]

That it’s not in the bible. And since, as you explained above, sola scripture teaches that all beliefs must be taught in the bible, it is therefore self-contradictory.

Sola Scriptura doesn’t teach that all beliefs must be taught in the Bible.

When I say the Bible is Truth, I’m not saying that it is Truth exhaustively.

So what is it about Sola Scriptura that you disagree with?

What greater authority is there than God’s word (which is revealed in Scripture, though not exhaustively)?