Question about Sola Scriptura

[SD_Catholic]

**A commonly educated person, in my view, is one who can read and write and comphrehend what they are reading.
**

So only those that can read and write are worthy of God’s grace?.. Ohhh… I know OS will read it to them and explain everything right?.. even many of the ones that can read it have tried to comprehend and they just don’t get it like OS does… that narrow gate must be even narrower than I thought since I doubt there are many who comprehend it the same way as OS.

SD

 

[Static]

Old Scholar said:

Sorry but that was not in my quote. ( about Cyril )
…

What I looked up is how it was quoted. You changing the words to fit your beliefs are void. If you are using non-catholic sources, I expect nothing less.
Old Scholar said:

Cyril lived in the 5th century…What are you talking about??? All the Scriptures were written in the first century and used faithfully ever since then.
…

What you quoted was from A.D 315- - A.D.386. Where did you find that it was from the 5th century ?
Old Scholar said :

Duh…You didn’t read that very well. Read again what I have highlighted for you..
…

Duh ? That’s a big evangelizing word I haven’t come across yet.
I read all you quoted & you proved my point. You highlighted what you wanted to highlight dismissing the rest.
Old Scholar said :

I use the fathers to show that YOUR early church believed in Sola Scriptura. The type of Tradition the RCC now claims was all added later and did not come from Scripture.

As far as Paul naming the magicians, you must know that Paul was a Pharisee and knew the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol.2 very well. Every Jew did. That was extremely important to their history. Any Jew would have know their names. They were well published in most Jewish Literature. Even the Jewish children knew the story of Moses
…

You misuse the ECF’s. Sola Scriptura was not born until the 16th century. Just because the bible was around when your church was founded doesn’t mean you can scream Sola Scriptura. How dare St. Paul use another book other than the bible to teach children. You say that the names were important to their history, but it must be important to ours too, it’s in the bible is it not ?
Hope you don’t miss the point at hand. Try to be a happy camper like me !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

.

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God**, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen,**Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94
Origin more than 120 years before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate declared Luke 1:28 as Hail Full of Grace: THE ANGEL’S GREETING TO MARY UNIQUE. ORIGEN: The angel greeted Mary with a new address, which I could not find anywhere else in Scripture. I ought to explain this expression briefly. The angel says, “Hail, full of grace.” … I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture. An expression of this kind, “Hail, full of grace,” is not addressed to a male. This greeting was reserved for Mary alone. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 6.7. 14FC 94:26. Just, A. A. (2005). Vol. 3: Luke. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 3. (Page 14). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“And to** holy Mary,** [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord**; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin**.” Augustine,Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135
in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,15 (A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:142-143
As **he formed her without my stain of her own,**so He **proceeded from her contracting no stain.” **Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446), in ULL,97
"A **virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, **like a lil

 

[Newbie2]

Scripture, as the written Word of God, is based on Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles, not the other way around.

I don’t know if I’d explain it quite this way…much of Tradition is scripturally based. But point taken.

For me, the best argument against Sola Scriptura is that the bible is not self-authenticating, and that the Church existed before the bible as we know it did.

One would think, wouldn’t one, that if the bible were the sole source of authority it would state so clearly…not to mention that “these are the books that are contained herein…no less, no more, that have been deemed to be the true inspired word of God”?

As well, consider that there had to be someone (not just one person) that had the authority to decide which books and what parts of which books are part of the bible. Funny how that authority would somehow be negated after the bible canon was finished. “Thanks for your help, fellas. Your authority in following God’s inspiration to put together this bible has now expired.”

Sure, there is “biblical evidence” provided by those who support SS to refute the authority of Tradition. Once one has locked themself into the “bible-only” box, it’s difficult to explain the authority by which it was made a canon.

It would be a far different matter had the book dropped from the sky, but that didn’t happen.

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

.

Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that Imay be transferred to the place of the just." Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160),in ANF,VIII:490

Let him who understands and believes this pray for Abercius." Inscription of Abercius(A.D. 190),in PAT,I:172

"Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, … This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age? who died miserably with disease…But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp,…I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And **where there had been a wound,…***he was translated from the place of*punishment." The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitias,2:3-4(A.D. 202),in ANF,III:701-702

" the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more–not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides**, he is also ashamed of his transgressions.** The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one,…."** Clement **of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

**"As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours." Tertullian,The Chaplut,3(A.D. 211),in ANF,III:94
“[A] woman …Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him …and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep.” **Tertullian,**On Monogamy,10(A.D. 216),in ANF,III:66-67
"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3:11-15);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would **you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;**or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for ***our God ***to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works."
Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,PG 13:445,448(A.D. 244),in CE,577

" For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. … Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing;( Mat5:25-26, & 48,} another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord."** Cyprian,**To Antonianus,Epistle 51(55):20(A.D. 253),in ANF,V:332

 

[Michael_G]

Will you show us the traditions that say those things?

.

The NT repeatedly speaks of Sacred oral Tradition, even Christ passed on to us Sacred Oral Tradition of the OT.

6) If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23 “He shall be called a Nazarene.” , …this prophecy not recorded in the OT*

Mat 23:2; 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. Moses seat nowhere to be found in the OT…now you know where the chair of Peter comes from…
Gal 3:19 Why then was the law? It was set
because of transgressions, until the seed
should come to whom he made the promisebeing ordained by angels in the hand of a
mediator. (according to Jewish traditions, the Law was promulgated on Mount Sinai through angels)
Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the
disposition of angels and have not kept it.
Mat 23:35 even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar (no where is this recorded in the Old Testament but is an example of sacred Oral tradition from Old Testament times)
1 Cor 10:4; 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural * Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. OT does not tell us that the rock which gave the Jews water followed them in the desert…

Jude 9,) But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you
Jude**14 15 **It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
these quotes from Jude are not in the OT…

John 4:6 Jacob’s well is not found in the OT.
**(Barnes commentary) Gal. 3:19 and Acts 7:53 and Heb 2:2 And “it was ordained by angels” “received Law by angels”, “Declared by Angels” - …**see the note at Act_7:53. The Old Testament makes no mention of the presence of angels at the giving of the Law, but it was a common opinion among the Jews that the Law was given by the instrumentality of angels , and
(Interesting so Barnes commentary because they reject sacred Oral tradition calls or implies certain quotes in the NT as mere opinions. mj)

**8) How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John? **
from the sacred Oral tradition of the Catholic church alone, these books do not identify the author in the writing,… it is identified soly by the church which you claim is false…!!!

Just so you know These quotes of Sacred Oral tradition from the NT are not the only ones, there are close to 2X’s more at least…

oops I gues we have to throw out substantial about the NT since it is based on Sacred Oral Tradition of the Church of NT as well as Sacred Oral Tradition of the OT

Folks it is both the Bible and Church or it is neither. Neither Scripture nor early church fathers when taken as a whole can support Scripture alone, one can only form this heritcal position by being selective in the church fathers quotes and Scripture quotes. One fails to understand that in order for the Protestant revolt to occur they had to come up with a new authority rejecting the authority of the church, authroity of all those early church fathers, and claiming solo Scriptura even though the Bible does not state this anywhere

 

[Static]

Old Scholar said:

*Although the burden of proof is on those who make the claim that it isn’t, I will be glad to answer the question.

Let’s start by showing the sufficiency of Scripture this way:

2 Cor 3:5 “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God*
First off, our sufficiency from God does not limit Him to the written word alone. I am not arguing that God is not sufficient.
Secondly, you are riding on one verse. What does the surrounding verses say in context ? If you don’t want to read it in context, let me finish it for you.

2 Cor 3:1-6 - Do we begin again to commend ourselves ? Or do we need ( as some do ) epistles of commendation to you, or from you ? You are our epistle, written in our hearts, which is known and read by all men : Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart. And such confidence we have, through Christ towards God. Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God. Who also hath made us fit ministers of the new testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

Did you catch that ? Your out of context interpretations are leading people down a dangerous path. Why do you do this ? I will answer more of this post later. I need to get my backside to Mass. If all goes well, I will try & get back with you today.
Please read ( 2 Pet 3:15f ) because this is what you are doing. Thanks.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t know if I’d explain it quite this way…much of Tradition is scripturally based. But point taken.

What DebChris might mean is one of the main keys for determining that a writing was Scriptural was “how much did it agree with Tradition”.

 

[Static]

*Old Scholar said:

Now let’s look at another Scripture. 2 Cor 9:8 “And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work
Again we are told that God is our sufficiency, He is our source and there are no limits on His ability. A person cannot go around saying that “the Word of God just isn’t enough.” The simple gospel IS enough, God has said it is. Then look further at verse 10-11, same chapter:*
…

To make every grace abundant makes Sola Scriptura true ? What am I missing ? Plus, you said , “There are no limits to His abilities,” but then you limit Him to just the written word which is foreign to the scriptures, why ?
*Old Scholar said:

1 Cor 3:10 “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Jesus Christ is the foundation and it is His Word that is important. His Word has been preserved for us in Scripture. We know of nothing else He may have said. He often used Scripture Himself to substantiate anything question raised. “It is written” was His most common reference to the truth*.
…

Okay ! When He said it is written he said. "One does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God. " quoting Dt 8:3. Does this limit us to the written word
alone ?

To go along with the “It is written” did not Jesus also say, “You have heard,” Mt 5:21;27;31;33;38;43 ?
*Old Scholar said:

Jesus intended His church to be built upon Scripture, not Peter or oral traditions.*
…
The church came first, did Jesus ever write or command others
to write? If we have a problem with a brother are we told to take it to the bible and argue passages until we figure it all out ?
( Mt 18 ) Where did He say this or should I say where did He write this ?
*Old Scholar said :

2 Tim 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”*
…

Hmmmmm, I see profitable not sufficient.
Old Scholar said:

What makes this one so good, ( 2 Tim 3:16 ) is that in 54 A.D. not a great deal of Scripture had been written for the NT, but several books had. Those were considered Scripture as well and this was written to say that ALL Scripture present and future is sufficient. This doesn’t say that Scripture will equip us for “some” good work and “oral” teaching will do the rest…NO…It says EVERY GOOD WORK! That means all that we need is there.*
…

You said that this verse means that all scripture is inspired both present and future, does this mean that scripture is still being written and will be written for us to obey ?

If you take this verse as scripture being all you need then you need to obey what scripture says in 2 Thes 2:15, for one.
" Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." But you don’t.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Static]

More!

Often the argument is made that man cannot understand the Scriptures, it must be done by the church and the church only. Well Scripture refutes that as well.

Ephesians 3:3-5 “that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit"

2 Cor 1:13 ]"For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end"

2 Tim 3:15 “from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Nehemiah 8:3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)

With the exception of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, all of Scripture is written to the Christian in general and not the leaders. Read these Scriptures…they tell who the epistles were written to:

Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Collossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Revelation 1:4.

The Scriptures are sufficient and can be easily understood by a commonly educated person. If one says they are insufficient, the burden of proof is upon him.



Who has said or is arguing the point that the scriptures are insufficient ? What chapter and verse do you have that says scripture is easily understood for whoever picks up the good book and starts to read it in view of an early verse given you in ( 2 Pet 3:15f ) ? These verse you quoted prove Sola Scriptura ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[cfrancis]

Cal, you stated:

That’s simply not true. The Scriptures were written in the first century. Peter himself declared **all of Paul’s writings **Scripture as well as the gospels.

You thus admit the Bible is missing at least 2 inspired books.

 

[NotWorthy]

Cal, you stated:
You thus admit the Bible is missing at least 2 inspired books.

Don’t worry. Dan Brown will find the other two Corinthians for us.

BTW, when did Peter say the four Gospels were Gospel?!?

 

[SilentKnight]

NotWorthy,

Just now noticed your sig. Is that your own creation, or is someone else to be quoted for it?

SK

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy,

Just now noticed your sig. Is that your own creation, or is someone else to be quoted for it?

SK

C’mon! I’m about as original as new make-up on an old … well, you know.

When ever I come across a quote that really strikes me (you know how those people get smacked in the head on the V8 commercials?), I’ve got to post it.

Thanks for noticing my flare for using other people’s words of wisdom, though!

BTW, I’m pretty sure I absconded that from Bud Miller who does some pretty good Apologetic talks on MP3.

 

[Newbie2]

What DebChris might mean is one of the main keys for determining that a writing was Scriptural was “how much did it agree with Tradition”.

Could be, which would be true.

 

[guanophore]

Then I’m sure you will be glad to list for me some Apostolic teaching that is not found in the Scriptures…? And when you do, tell me how you verify it…

No, I think it is a strawman. The entire deposit of faith was given to the Apostles. They recorded some of it in the NT. They made no effort to distinguish between the two strands, which both come from the same Source. The Deposit of faith comes from Christ, and He is also not bound to the pages of the Holy Writings, though He uses them to express Himself to us.

The teaching of Jesus was handed to the Apostles, and they chose and ordained faithful men, who were able to teach others also. It is a sacred and divine trust, which has been preserved by the power of the HS. We can verify what belongs to Sacred Tradition by comparing things to the content of that divine deposit of faith. This is how the canon of the NT was formed. That “tradition that is not in the bible” that we presently call the Table of Contents!

" O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." 1 Tim 6:20

2 Tim 1:5-6
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

I guess you must reject Apostolic Succession, so as to freely persist in your disobedience to the one who sits on the chair of St. Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Early church fathers condemned those heretics who were distoring Scripture. That’s how they determined a heretic, by comparing what he taught with Scripture. How else could they prove him wrong? Would they have dared say, “well so and so said something different, so you are wrong”???

Go back (using those little blue arrows next to the poster). Re-read the passages. They are talking about the divine deposit of faith, only part of which is found in scripture.

 

[guanophore]

**

And regarding Elijah and Enoch, we are told by Scripture that they died. There is a statement of Christ Himself that no one has gone to heaven except Him. Enoch and Elijah are both in the grave, not in heaven with God.**

:bigyikes:

Do you also believe in that innovation the fundamentalists call “soul sleep” where those who have died in Christ are not really with the Lord?

Did Elijah and Moses come out of the “grave” to converse with Jesus?

How is Enoch walking with God, if he is in his grave?

 

[po18guy]

OS, I am sorry, but you allege that the bible, all of which the Catholic church preserved at a price in blood for you, is complete and all that’s necessary for your salvation.

It is you, my brother, and you alone, who bear the full, complete, 100% burden before God and His people, to prove that what you allege has any foundation whatsoever. You can copy and paste the entire NT in response, but it becomes nothing more than nonsensical babbling, since you have no authority, zero, zip, nada, to interpret scripture. Oh, you have as much authority as I do, which is none.

I cannot and will not risk my salvation to tissue paper theology which does not stand up to any test, other than that of rebellion against God’s church.

 

[Ignatius]

Before I answer your question, please answer mine.

I have, several times. But I will again if you promise to answer mine afterwards.

Why did the Roman Catholic Church stray from believing that the Scriptures were the final truth and that all doctrines had to be based on them?

The Church did not stray. The false, extra-biblical, man made doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not even exist until the 16th century. When the Early Church writers speak of the Word of God they are speaking not only of the written word, but as Paul advised " brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Th 2:15)

I showed you several of your early church leaders that believed that wholeheartedly, yet the church strayed from their teachings.

You are misunderstanding their writings. They are speaking of both the written and oral Word of God. But if you’d like to discuss individual writings, go ahead and pick one and post it here and we’ll discuss it after you’ve answered my questions.

Now you must answer my questions with a simple yes or no:

1. Could the Holy Spirit, through the universal Church (which is the Body of Christ), have enabled believers – particularly the Bishops (the successors of the Apostles), in the first few hundred years of the Church, to faithfully and accurately pass along the traditions Paul taught by “word of mouth”? Yes, or no?
2. Are you infallible in your interpretations of Scripture? Was Martin Luther infallible in his? Or John Calvin? Yes, or no?
3. Is the canon of the Bible infallible? In other words, does the Bible contain exactly the number of books, and the correct books, that it should contain? Yes, or no?
4. If you answered, “Yes,” to #3, then by what authority do you believe this to be so? The Bible, or oral tradition?
5. If I were to deny that the Letter of James was inspired Scripture, by what authority would you declare me to be wrong? Does the Bible say James is “God-breathed?” Yes, or no?
6. If Bible-only Christians can get it wrong when it comes to their interpretation of the Bible in regard to traditions, as you stated can be the case, then can they get it wrong when it comes to their interpretations regarding doctrines? Yes, or no?

May the Grace and Peace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ descend upon you and remain with you foreve.

Your servant in Christ