W
water
Guest
I believe that we cannot have the guarantee of salvation based on faith alone.
- Status
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Exactly where is this rule found in the Bible?
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Perhaps you have misunderstood my line of thinking. I appreciate that you are offering an opinion. However, my interest is particularly how you have come to this opinion. For as we know very well, opinion is not doctrine. So, once again, my question regarding how you have concluded that the Webster/King doctrinal statments are “the best,” prompts the question of how you have concluded that their instruction is authoritative. Or, perhaps, you merely find their doctrinal stance correct insomuch as it coincides with your personal doctrine and traditions? I’m wondering. . .
This is tenuous for the Christian. Hopefully, obviously so.
Please prove that
is a Biblical doctrinal stance.
First, because you have not heard it, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been said. I appreciate your distaste for the first additional “definition.” However, the usage, as such, is undeniable regardless of whether or not you have heard it so properly defined.
It should be equally obvious, however, that while Sacred Scripture is indeed and in truth the Word of God, it is not the ONLY Word of God. While Sacred Scripture is wholly true and authoritative, it is not the only truth and authority. This is the Scriptural extension and the teaching of the Catholic Church.
This, too, is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You will need to substantiate this.
Okay. . .how about #1?
What exactly did those early Christians do without Scriptures? Was the Church left without an infallible rule of faith until St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, St. James, St. Paul, St. Peter, and the author of the Hebrews epistle finished their writings? Was the Church without an infallible rule fo faith until all of these writings were compiled, canonized, and accessible? Was there an era in Church history, after Pentacost, when Christians were left floundering for an infallible rule of faith? These would be the natural and reasonable extensions of your #1 definition.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It’s pretty clear to me the Protestants are wrong and the Catholics are right.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Yes, the collection process for the canon is not infallible, though I would say the canon we have is inerrant. This shouldn’t be that surprising to you, because Catholics didn’t have an “infallible” canon until the Council of Trent.At least you admit that the Canon is not infallible.
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Is that an infallible statement?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hi Jacobaer,
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
Actually, I covered all the bases, because I not only listed personal things but also listed spiritual things(e.g. canon, liturgy, distributing the elements of the Lord’s Supper).
I think it is contradicted by Scripture, however even if it wasn’t, but there was no positive command to do it or good and necessary consequence then you could not impose that on anyone else.
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Nope, because I’m not infallible.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
So you think there is a possibility that the Canon could be wrong? Could some of the truly inspired books be missing? Could some herectical books be among the canon?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Grace and Peace,
S.S.Completely wrong! Though a constant propaganda tool of n-Cs/aCs.
Trent merely affirmed what the church had already held prior to that time, and the only reason that they did that was because the “reformers” had errantly attacked it.
The infallible canon was indeed in place and all the ECF lists of the canon concur with the one that is in the Catholic Bible today.
Such assertions without proof are empty assertions.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
The only way I could say there is no possibility whatsoever of there being any error is that if I was infallible. And guess what, the same is true for you unless you claim infallibility. Saying that the church is infallible doesn’t help you, because you had to pick that church over all the other competing churches. With that being said, I’m as convinced as I can be that the canon I have is inerrant.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Hey hey I don’t want to get sidetracked. I’m doing my historical Jesus study here. 
Lak << PhilVaz, sorry I missed your original posts about Mathison, Schaff, Kelly and Pelikan. What are their first names, and what are the titles of the books they wrote? >>
Philip Schaff (Presbyterian/Reformed):
“The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects – TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606)
J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican):
“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48)
“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (ibid, page 51)
Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran now Orthodox):
“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for 'in the ante-Nicene Church…THERE WAS NO NOTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’…The term ‘rule of faith’ or ‘rule of truth’ did not always refer to such creeds and confessions, and seems sometimes to have meant the ‘tradition,’ sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel.” (The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 115-117)
“Fundamental to the orthodox consensus was an affirmation of the authority of tradition as that which had been believed ‘everywhere, always, by all [ubique, semper, ab omnibus].’ The criteria for what constituted the orthodox tradition were ‘universality, antiquity, and consensus.’ This definition of orthodox Catholic tradition was the work of Vincent of Lerins… To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and ‘only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.’…[It was] the tendency of heretics to teach doctrines that were not contained either in Scripture or in tradition. But the church of the four Gospels and the four councils [Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon] was faithful to Scripture and to tradition and was universal both in its outreach and in its authority.” (ibid, volume 1, page 334-335)
Do Webster/King or Mathison quote any of the above? No, they avoid these like the plague. They are found in Not By Scripture Alone edited by Sungenis. I’ve double checked the references.
Phil P
Lak << PhilVaz, sorry I missed your original posts about Mathison, Schaff, Kelly and Pelikan. What are their first names, and what are the titles of the books they wrote? >>
Philip Schaff (Presbyterian/Reformed):
“The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects – TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.” (History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 606)
J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican):
“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness.” (Early Christian Doctrines, page 47-48)
“Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church’s UNERRING tradition.” (ibid, page 51)
Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran now Orthodox):
“Clearly it is an anachronism to superimpose upon the discussions of the second and third centuries categories derived from the controversies over the relation of Scripture and tradition in the sixteenth century, for 'in the ante-Nicene Church…THERE WAS NO NOTION OF SOLA SCRIPTURA, but neither was there a doctrine of traditio sola.’…The term ‘rule of faith’ or ‘rule of truth’ did not always refer to such creeds and confessions, and seems sometimes to have meant the ‘tradition,’ sometimes the Scriptures, sometimes the message of the gospel.” (The Christian Tradition, volume 1, page 115-117)
“Fundamental to the orthodox consensus was an affirmation of the authority of tradition as that which had been believed ‘everywhere, always, by all [ubique, semper, ab omnibus].’ The criteria for what constituted the orthodox tradition were ‘universality, antiquity, and consensus.’ This definition of orthodox Catholic tradition was the work of Vincent of Lerins… To identify orthodox doctrine, one had to identify its locus, which was the catholic church, neither Eastern nor Western, neither Greek nor Latin, but universal throughout the civilized world (oikoumene). This church was the repository of truth, the dispenser of grace, the guarantee of salvation, the matrix of acceptable worship. Only here did God accept sacrifices, only here was there confident intercession for those who were in error, only here were good works fruitful, only here did the powerful bond of love hold men together and ‘only from the catholic church does truth shine forth.’…[It was] the tendency of heretics to teach doctrines that were not contained either in Scripture or in tradition. But the church of the four Gospels and the four councils [Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon] was faithful to Scripture and to tradition and was universal both in its outreach and in its authority.” (ibid, volume 1, page 334-335)
Do Webster/King or Mathison quote any of the above? No, they avoid these like the plague. They are found in Not By Scripture Alone edited by Sungenis. I’ve double checked the references.
Phil P
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Do you recognize the New Catholic Encyclopedia as proof?
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
nice job of copying from justforcatholics.org. I did some test searches on my own. All sources lead to anti-catholic websites.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hi Joey,
Actually, this is old information for me. I can quote you church fathers, theologians, and a pope that disagrees with the current Catholic canon. But even if it did come from an anti-catholic website that doesn’t make it false. It is the New Catholic Encyclopedia that makes the statement, sorry.
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
You may call it tenuous, but it is a fact nonetheless. For example the Catholic Catechism is only authoritative for Catholics. Every other Christian body rejects its authority. So that is my point. Unless two individual are under the same authority it will not be authoritative for both.
OK. 1. Scripture teaches that God cannot lie and He is perfect in all His ways. This covers the infallibility part. 2. Scripture also teaches that those who are inspired to write Scripture are infallible, because Scripture is God speaking. 3. If you cannot show me any other instance of God speaking then it logically follows that Scripture is the only infallible source we have. I’m sure you realize that the onus is on you at this point to show me some other source that the church has which is infallible.
I’m sure it has been said, but that doesn’t make it a valid definition of sola Scriptura. There are Catholics that say all kinds of things, but you wouldn’t grant that all of those are valid Catholic teachings. So why do you expect it to be that way for Protestants?
Well, why don’t you show me some other “Word of God” that you have as an authority? You said it is obvious, so demonstrate it.
OK, sounds good.
The church was never without the Scriptures, because they had the O.T. Scriptures. Furthermore, I’m speaking of the church today. The Scriptures were not the sole infallible rule of faith when revelation was still being given or when Jesus Christ was walking the earth. So the point still stands.
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Yes I can quote ECF that equally agreed with the books. The point is that he have the books. The books were not taken out of the KJV until 1829. The Apocrypha lasted from 1611 to 1829 in KJV. Satan removed them in the guise of the The American Bible Society in 1829.
This same Society has since returned them to their respected place in some versions.
Yes a Pope and few others disagreed with the current Catholic Canon. They are allowed their personal opinion. We can be grateful that they that disagreeed did not decide to issue doctrine stating so.
And yes Jerome had his opinion as well. But he did not act on that opinion as Martin Luther did. Jerome translated the OT in its entirety and the OT into Latin. My Latin Bible has these books.
So none of this really diminishes the Catholic position.
Personal opinions of Popes and others never constitute doctrine.
I will have purchase this New book which seems to have been revised…
compared to :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia
vs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Catholic_Encyclopedia
What say you Catholics out there? I don’t know anything about this book. Do you?
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Hi Joey,
Remember the context of why I quoted this? It was based on this remark:
So it was posted to answer the accusation that I was “Completely Wrong”, which means the New Catholic Encyclopedia is also completely wrong
Grace and Peace,
S.S.
R
Reformed1
Guest
All the ECF lists of the canon concur with the one that is in the Catholic Bible today? Are you sure you want to use the word “all”?
Seems Pope Gregory doubted the canonocity of…1 Maccabees. Earlier church fathers had issues with various books of the OT and NT so the word “all” makes your statement patently false.
L
lak611
Guest
Show me writings by Pope Gregory where he doubts this.
- Status