Protestants do not really believe in Sola Scriptura

[Chris_LaRock]

Can you tell me who has the final say as to the 40 translations you own. Is each translation left up to the individual as to its accuracy?

Nobody really. It’s up to the individual to look into the scolarly work.

6 of them are Catholic Bibles.

DRB
Canfraternity
Good News
JB
NJB
NAB

 

[JRKH]

Where is tradition taught in scripture?

This is a non-argument.

SS declares that the Bible is all you need. That it is self authenticating. If that is so then SS must be contained within the pages of the Bible.
SS also declares that the Bible is Clear and self interpreting. Therefore the Bible must not only declare SS, but it must be clearly claimed to any “rational reader” and it must be cross referenced (scripture interprets scripture).

Similar claims are not made for Tradition therefore your question is moot.

Peace
James

 

[justasking4]

JRKH;4097628]The “Fly in the ointment” though is the fact that:
Jesus did not Give His Authority to the Bible. He Gave it to His Church. It is Christ’s Authrotitative Church, empowered to bind and loose which is the authority by which the Bible is properly understood.

The Bible (scriptures) as we know it today did not exist until after 350 years after the founding of the Church.
While Scriptures are indeed known to be “God Breathed”, we only know this through the certitude of The Church.
They were God Breathed and given to The Church which, through Her God Given Authority, seperated these True Books from literally hundreds of False Books then in circulation.

Which Came first The Church or the Bible you Hold in your hand?

The OT Scriptures predate the church and the church did not determine the canon of the OT. As for the church you could say that as the church was being built the Word was being taught orally and written at the same time as the church was growing.

Which has the Authority of Christ 's own words?

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Peace
James

 

[Church_Militant]

The OT Scriptures predate the church and the church did not determine the canon of the OT.

Predate yes, but you’re historically wrong as to the affirmation of the Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

There were certainly no Protestants there during any of those early church discussions, and there was no one who actually held any of the Protestant doctrines at that time.

As for the church you could say that as the church was being built the Word was being taught orally and written at the same time as the church was growing.

So now you acknowledge that “the church was being built” and that obviously means that the church grew and developed. How can you then deny and argue with all their writings that are so distinctly Catholic and not anywhere near to the later teachings of the Reformers?

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;4098917]Predate yes, but you’re historically wrong as to the affirmation of the Old Testament Canon
How so? Did not the Jews at the time of Christ have inspired Scripture?

There were certainly no Protestants there during any of those early church discussions, and there was no one who actually held any of the Protestant doctrines at that time.

Were there any Roman Catholics at these early councils?

So now you acknowledge that “the church was being built” and that obviously means that the church grew and developed.

Yes. It did not just pop into existence fully grown.

How can you then deny and argue with all their writings that are so distinctly Catholic and not anywhere near to the later teachings of the Reformers?

I stop with the writings of the Scriptures since these alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. If what these later leaders taught lines up with this standard then i accept that. When they don’t, and there are many teachings that don’t, i either don’t accept as authoritative or true.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

 

[Church_Militant]

How so? Did not the Jews at the time of Christ have inspired Scripture?

Yeah, but they were still debating it.

Were there any Roman Catholics at these early councils?

Did you ever read any of them? Did you read the link I gave you? One of the most important reasons that I am Catholic is that in looking into the writings of the early church I find them to be very much Catholic in what they say they believe. Especially noticeable is the earliest stuff like the Didache, the Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp which link directly to the apostles.

Yes. It did not just pop into existence fully grown.

I stop with the writings of the Scriptures since these alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. If what these later leaders taught lines up with this standard then i accept that. When they don’t, and there are many teachings that don’t, i either don’t accept as authoritative or true.

The Didache, actually dates from the time of the writing of the New Testament.

Ignatius and Polycarp date from just after the death of St. John.

Your problem is that you will accept the teachings of modern men, which is exactly what the errors of the reformers are, and all the while saying that you reject the writings of those who were taught by the apostles themselves, which makes no sense to me.

With regard to Sola Scriptura, in the context of both the Word of God and the writings of the earliest ECF, it cannot be found.

Not until some 1500+ years later that is…

 

[sandusky]

Mea Culpa:

Still no answer from sandusky or other sola scriptura-ists on where sola scriptura is taught in the Bible.

I gave you some links earlier; read them or not, the choice of yours.

 

[sandusky]

McGluke:

In 2 Thes 2:1-5 Paul tells the Thessalonians and us to beware of false teachers. In verse 15 he tells us to uphold what Paul himself has taught (Apostolic teaching). And that teaching comes to us orally (Tradition) or written (scripture).

ISTM that you’re inferring that Oral Tradition diffes from written Scripture; is that correct?

McGluke:

Nothing in Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture, tradition is the lense through which we view Scripture in order to properly understand it.

I understand that, and I find it to be backwards.

 

[sandusky]

JRKH:

Simple - the whole basis of this conversation is that We have no problem with Oral tradition and you do. Likewise You have no problem with Sola Scriptura and we do. So th problem lies, not in what we accept for ourselves, but in the manner by which we can explain and understand the other’s position.

It has been my experience that, where we are willing to look at each others positions and views on theology, doctrine and practice openly and with love, ther usually turns out to be a surprising amount of common ground.

I simply offer your list of responses below to my previous responses to your responses and so forth back through this thread as the example of the ecumenical difficulties we face.

I see.**Mark 7:5-13

5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?”

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me.

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;

11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’

12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;

13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”**Were Jesus and the Jews experiencing an ”ecumenical problem?

ISTM that Jesus is insisting that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority, unlike McGluke, who says:

Nothing in Tradition contradicts Sacred Scripture, tradition is the lense through which we view Scripture in order to properly understand it.

Again, I think that’s backward.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #126)

JRKH:

However, in your case, it appears that you misunderstand the concept of Oral Tradition. I have tried to explain that it entails much more than the idea of some “list” as you seem to believe. I would ask that you please simply reconsider ALL the the idea of Oral tradition entails.

I may misunderstand your concept of Tradition; nevertheless, were I to embrace it, I desire and would require more proof of it than you desire and require.

JRKH:

This is your position based on, 1) your reading of Scripture without the benefit of the Oral Teachings of The Church and, 2) The tradition passed on to you by the founders of the SS belief system.

I think you’re assuming a lot here, especially that the Church’s oral teachings are a benefit, as well as assuming that I hold to SS on the basis of tradition alone.

JRKH:

Our position, fortified by 2000 years of tradition, is that there are several examples in the Bible where the authors obviously believe in the real presence. Outside of the Bible I can think of no better proof of the early church’s belief in the Real Presence than the Fact that Both the Catholic Church at Rome, and the Orthodox Churches believe the same. They believe in the Real and Substantial Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

I understand.

JRKH:

I think you are 1) putting too much emphasis on a definition and 2) missing the very real biblical instances of clear explanation.

In the first case, I would point to the fact that Gravity was real and excepted by all as fact long before Newton put any definition to it. The fact that it had not been defined did not change the truth of it any more than the lack of a definition for the Real Presence changed the truth of it.

Gravity can be demonstrated, transubstantiation cannot, and your statement on the “truth” of the real presence is circular in that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. I find as well, that “real presence,” and “transubstantiation” are not the same, though RCs insist they are.

JRKH:

In the second case, Jesus himself talked of the Real Presence when He told the disciples that they MUST eat His Flesh and He did not call them back when many left saying this teaching was too hard.

Your statement assumes many things including the correctness of your position without offering any explanation of the passage in its context; needless to say, I disagree with the Catholic interpretation of John 6.

JRKH:

I’m surprised at your assertion here. In Jewish law, gentiles and tax collectors WERE, in fact, cut-off. Considered as unclean and proper Jews would have little or nothing to do with them. But this remains a detail to the actual point of the verse.

”Cut off” in the OT generally meant “to be put to death” (cf Gen 9:11 its first use).

JRKH:

Christ Left us, not a book, but a Church - A church with His Authority to bind and Loose - He did not promise us a book, nor did he pormise to “Be With” a book. All of these Promises he gave to The Church - His Church.

Actually, Christ left us both:**You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He [Christ] foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

Augustine,** In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. See NPNF Series I. VII:469.At least according to Augustine, me and many others.

 

[sandusky]

JRKH:

The “Fly in the ointment” though is the fact that:
Jesus did not Give His Authority to the Bible. He Gave it to His Church. It is Christ’s Authrotitative Church, empowered to bind and loose which is the authority by which the Bible is properly understood.

James White defines that as "sola ecclesia,” and I think his definition is very accurate.

JRKH:

The Bible (scriptures) as we know it today did not exist until after 350 years after the founding of the Church. While Scriptures are indeed known to be “God Breathed”, we only know this through the certitude of The Church.

Not true; what is true is that the canon had not been declared, but the writings certainly existed.

JRKH:

They were God Breathed and given to The Church which, through Her God Given Authority, seperated these True Books from literally hundreds of False Books then in circulation.

And we are indebted to God for using the early church to preserve vast numbers of manuscripts.

JRKH:

Which Came first The Church or the Bible you Hold in your hand?

Which has the Authority of Christ 's own words?

I think your initial questions sets up a false dichotomy, so I’ll ignore your second question because of that.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I gave you some links earlier; read them or not, the choice of yours.

**Still no answer to a simple question: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?

If it’s not taught in the Bible, your whole theological system is null and void.

Your refusal to answer this simple question shows the falseness of your doctrine of sola scriptura.

WHERE IS SOLA SCRIPTURA TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE?**

 

[sandusky]

**Still no answer to a simple question: where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?

If it’s not taught in the Bible, your whole theological system is null and void.

Your refusal to answer this simple question shows the falseness of your doctrine of sola scriptura.

WHERE IS SOLA SCRIPTURA TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE?**

A link to essays on Sola Scriptura for the belligerent

.

 

[Des]

A link to essays on Sola Scriptura for the belligerent

.

lol, that would take a month of 4 men doing 6 hour cycles just to read all of that.

Right away though as I glanced through one of them I found this quite funny. This jokester attempts to say just because our sufficiency is from God, then the word of God is sufficient. And the last part in brown is just priceless cause now it’s a sin to question sola scritpura as it would doubt God’s ability to act sufficent through us through His Word.
It’s as if he’s picking verses like one would fruit at a fruit stand and applying his own twisted perversed logic to them to justify sola Scripture.

Second Corinthians 3:5…2 Corinthians 3:5, listen to what it says, very short so listen carefully: “Our sufficiency is from God.” Did you hear that? “Our sufficiency is from God.” Now we could preach off of just that statement at great length. Our sufficiency is not from men. Our sufficiency is not from human wisdom. Our sufficiency is not from human resources. Our sufficiency is from God. Our sufficiency…what does that mean? That means our capability of living life in God’s plan to the maximum is from Him.

**Another verse in 2 Corinthians is in chapter 9, in fact it’s parts of two verses, verses 8 and 10. Second Corinthians 9:8 says, and listen to this, just listen to what I say carefully and I want you to mark in your mind the superlatives…the superlatives. In fact, why don’t you open your Bible to 2 Corinthians 9:8 so you can underline them. Watch the superlatives here…2 Corinthians 9:8. “And God,” and there again is our sufficiency, **God is our sufficiency, He is our source, “God is able,” there are no limits on His ability, “to make all grace,” now there’s the first superlative, “all grace,” not just some grace, not just most grace but all grace. “He is able to make ALL grace ABOUND” there’s another superlative, another word that speaks of a superlative indulgence. “He is able to make ALL grace ABOUND toward you that you…here’s another superlative…ALWAYS,” not sometimes, not most of the time but all the time, “will have ALL sufficiency,” there’s another superlative, “will have ALL sufficiency,” not in some things, a few things, or most things, but in what?..“in ALL things.”
I mean, it’s an absolutely amazing statement. And anybody who goes around saying, “Well, you know, the simple gospel just isn’t enough. The Word of God isn’t enough. I’ve got to have this and this philosophy and this human wisdom and this approach,” doesn’t understand that that is a sin against the claim of God Himself to be able to make ALL grace ABOUND toward you so that you ALWAYS have ALL sufficiency in ALL things, and again, you will ABOUND, another superlative, and here comes another one, to EVERY good work, or to ALL good works. Absolutely unlimited superlatives.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

A link to essays on Sola Scriptura for the belligerent

.

I don’t want to read essays where they take a word from here and a word from there and try to patch them together to fit their pre-conceived, man-made, false doctrine of sola scriptura. I want you to tell me - **where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught? **

Very simple. Just give the chapter and verse.

(I know why you’re reluctant to do this. Because it’s not taught in the Bible, :nope: which invalidates your whole false doctrine.)

Sola scriptura = everything we need to know is in the Bible
Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.
Therefore, sola scriptura is not something we need to know.

 

[JRKH]

The OT Scriptures predate the church and the church did not determine the canon of the OT. As for the church you could say that as the church was being built the Word was being taught orally and written at the same time as the church was growing.

You will note that I refered to the Scriptures “as w know them today”. That means the Bible as you hold it in your hands.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Did Jesus tell His disciples to “Take it to The Church” or to take it to scripture?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Did Jesus tell His disciples to “Take it to The Church” or to take it to scripture?

Also, did Jesus tell the apostles - go forth and write a book, and then believe only what is in that book.

No.

He told them in Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

Jesus is with us always through the Church that he founded, the Catholic Church, and its sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

Sola scriptura is a false doctrine, it is un-Scriptural. There is no basis for it in Holy Scripture. An authentic study of Scripture can only lead one to conclude that Jesus founded a Church for the salvation of all nations, a Catholic Church; that church was built by Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles after his death. Their work was continued in the next generation by the Early Church Fathers. In about 100 AD that Church was first called “Catholic.” Many generations of saints and martyrs carried out the Great Commission of Jesus quoted above so that today the Church truly does encompass all nations and is in all senses of the word “Catholic.”

The Bible is the inspired word of God. Catholics believe what is in the Bible. We also believe that it needs to be interpreted in light of the Church’s Tradition and Magisterium. Sola scriptura is taught by men who want to take a verse from here and a verse from there, and twist them around to fit into whatever false doctrine they happen to be preaching that day.

 

[guanophore]

How so? Did not the Jews at the time of Christ have inspired Scripture?

Yes, but some of them did not recognize it for what it was. Some (Sadducees) only believed that the Torah (Books of Moses) were inspired, while some accepted The Law and the Prophets, while others included the Psalms and the Writings. The canon that the Protestants use today is the one finalized by the Jews that rejected Jesus, so it leaves out some books with specific references to Him, and what He taught.

Were there any Roman Catholics at these early councils?

Not as such, no. At the time of the early councils, the entire Christian world was speaking and writing in Greek. The Latin Rite did not emerge (just like the others) until later when the Roman Empire began to collapse, and Greek was not the dominant languge. Of course there were bishops from Rome, and the Successor of Peter.

I stop with the writings of the Scriptures since these alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

This is the main way that you are truncating your spiritual development. It is also the reason I say that you cannot progress without better foundation in the basics. The Church was not founded upon the Scriptures, but upon the Apostles and Prophets, who did not have a NT at the time. Until you can accept this, you will not get much further.

If what these later leaders taught lines up with this standard then i accept that. When they don’t, and there are many teachings that don’t, i either don’t accept as authoritative or true.

The main problem with this ruler is that what “lines up with scripture” is dependent upon your perceptions, which are, by nature, skewed. Human beings’ perceptions are formed by our personal life experiences, and influence how we interpret the world around us.

 

[sandusky]

Mea Culpa:

I don’t want to read essays where they take a word from here and a word from there and try to patch them together to fit their pre-conceived, man-made, false doctrine of sola scriptura. I want you to tell me - where in the Bible is sola scriptura taught?

Very simple. Just give the chapter and verse.

(I know why you’re reluctant to do this. Because it’s not taught in the Bible, which invalidates your whole false doctrine.)

Sola scriptura = everything we need to know is in the Bible
Sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible.
Therefore, sola scriptura is not something we need to know.

I’ve offered you a great deal of reading material so that you may familiarize yourself with teachings concerning SS, and so that you may formulate questions and arguments based upon those writings, but you’re unwilling to do the work; thus the old axiom proves true: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

 

[sandusky]

DES:

Now this is YOU inserting you’re own man made interpretation on the assumption that the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible specifically for Everything that is needed.

And you don’t think He did? Why? Was He too busy? Was He forgetful? He didn’t care? Why?

DES:

Yet He couldn’t get the Apostles to explicitly teach about the Trinity in one verse, Divorce, Baptism, Once Saved Always saved, speaking in tongues or whatever else you guys have problems with interpreting. We can’t even see in one verse in the entire Bible that Scripture is ALL we need in explicit detail or if so important, why ALL the Apostles didn’t write. I guess they were of no use to Jesus then since they were neglected in that area and since preaching orally wouldn’t suffice.

The requirements of God with respect to each of those points can be understood from Scripture.

DES:

The point is, they taught orally and also wrote and simply saying one knocks the other off the list is quite ridiculous, especially with zero doctrines to even back that up.

That’s what you’re doing—knocking off one, SS, in favor of another, Scripture plus Tradition.

Also, it seems to me that you, as McGluke does, infer that what was taught Orally, differs from what was written down in Scripture. Is that what you believe?

DES:

lol, that would take a month of 4 men doing 6 hour cycles just to read all of that.

And you’re not willing to do that, you’re not willing to do the work.

DES:

Right away though as I glanced through one of them I found this quite funny. This jokester attempts to say just because our sufficiency is from God, then the word of God is sufficient. And the last part in brown is just priceless cause now it’s a sin to question sola scritpura as it would doubt God’s ability to act sufficent through us through His Word.
It’s as if he’s picking verses like one would fruit at a fruit stand and applying his own twisted perversed logic to them to justify sola Scripture.

**2 Corinthians 3:5

Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,

2 Corinthians 9:8

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed;

2 Corinthians 9:10

Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness;**Here’s your chance to shine, DES; please give your interpretation of the verses…