Question for SS believers:

  • Thread starter Thread starter bookgirl32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Except for the fact that the canon of scripture, the Bible, was not established for about 250 to 300 years after Jesus. So . . . the teaching authorities, at that point, were the only revelation, period. Then it was those teaching authorities that established the canon. Then there’s the fact that the Church can trace itself back to these teaching authorities. The point is, the Scriptures are a PART of, a written form of, the teaching authority of this Church.
What do you think the early church fathers were quoting from? are you suggesting that the Bible wasn’t written until 250-300? I’m going to assume the answer is NO.
The content of the NT was written down during the apostolic age, and it is a witness to that time. by 250-300 people were trying to edit things and at that point the church had to say “no that is not what St. Paul said we have a copy of his letter right here.”

I assume that we both hold the Bible to be inspire now how can these eye witness accounts of the Risen Christ NOT hold a higher place of authotity than any man/woman alive today?
 
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:16-17

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

.
no where do these passages say it is
1.necessary for salvation
2.sufficient for salvation
3.the sole rule of authority for the believer
and the passage from John says nothing about scripture being the teaching method.
As Paul stated in the second book of the NT written, 2 thess 2:15 hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you, both by WORD OF MOUTH and written epistle.

nothing about scripture alone.

also, where did Christ write down his teachings or tell anyone to write them down and make a book called the Bible which would lead His people? he didn’t

The apostles PREACHED the teachings of Jesus, and not all of them (as scripture states) are in scripture.

So again, you have no case, either biblically, or historically to stand on. sorry.
 
The fact that the canon had not been set by a council or Pope did not seem to stop the early church fathers extensively quoting from the Scriptures as authoritative.
Why would it, I didn’t say they weren’t.
 
Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean “NO truth exist outside of scripture” it means that Scripture is sufficient. you are building the Strawman of solo scripture and then tearing into it. why can no one here accept the meaning of sola scriptura?
I’ll say it again
"how can the Catholic Church say that sola scriptura isn’t true and still say that those in reformed churches are breathern and in imperfect communion with Rome."

as far as the OT goes we use the same books that the Jews of Jesus day used.
starting at the bottom…the very same Jews that rejected the Word made flesh.kinda obvisous that they didn’t know the word of God then…it is by your baptism that you are born again into a son of God hence you become a brother.if you really wanted to be in PERFECT communion then drop this attempt of bible alone is sufficient for salvation.
 
Yes, that’s great. What I meant was, how do you know it’s truth?
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

The Holy Spirit teaches me the following;

*Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. John 17:17
*

.
 
no where do these passages say it is
1.necessary for salvation
2.sufficient for salvation
3.the sole rule of authority for the believer
and the passage from John says nothing about scripture being the teaching method.
As Paul stated in the second book of the NT written, 2 thess 2:15 hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you, both by WORD OF MOUTH and written epistle.

nothing about scripture alone.

also, where did Christ write down his teachings or tell anyone to write them down and make a book called the Bible which would lead His people? he didn’t

The apostles PREACHED the teachings of Jesus, and not all of them (as scripture states) are in scripture.

So again, you have no case, either biblically, or historically to stand on. sorry.
2pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I used to believe in Sola Scriptura but now I believe that the application of apostolic authority is the only way to properly use the scriptures.

2pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Other wise we fall into the common trap of everyone having thier own false doctorines. This leads to painful in fighting like in Corinthians. So I apply a form of Sola Scriptura by applying the Church Magistrum to the Bible, but it is very clear that the Apostles considered their epistles to be new scriptures. So they would have expected them to be gathered and published like the Old was by the Jewish people.

Re 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Re 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Re 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Col 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Yet here we see that this New Scripture was to universal in its reach. I have yet to find any catholic tradition that is not rooted in scripture. The Rosary emulates the Canaan wedding feast, Mary is obviously the Woman crowned with 12 stars in Revelations. All of the Sacraments are established in Scripture. I think that Scripture alone is the source for all that is Catholic. The Bible even establishes the guidelines for interpretation. We are to be taught of God, ie the Holy Spirit which in its fullness rests in the Episcopacy. The Church itself.
 
at that point no council had been called to tell anyone that they were authoritative.
I never claimed they WEREN’T authoritative before the councils. They have been authoritative (not soley authoritative) from the moment they were written. God knew that. The Church, being the teaching authority that Jesus established while on earth, and BEFORE any NT scripture was written, knew that as well. You’re quoting the Church fathers (or using them as evidence) to “prove” to me the authoritative value of the scriptures, correct? The Church fathers were using the authority of scriptures given to the scriptures by the authority of the Church. I would totally agree with them, and with you, that they were authoritative from the moment they were written.

The councils did not MAKE them authoritative, they defined which ones were and which ones were not. But the council, in doing so, was also authoritative. And I’d claim that the councils were sufficiently and necessarily authoritative in doing so. They did not, however, get this sufficient and necessary authority from the scriptures, they did not “check” this info to the scriptures, that’s my point when mentioning the establishment of canon. That the Church fathers, with the knowledge from the teaching authority of the Church, quoted scripture as authoritative before the councils, that the councils, with the teaching authority of the Church, defined for the world which scriptures belonged in the canon, BOTH testify to the teaching authority of the Church. OF COURSE the Church thinks that the scriptures are authoritative, but the Church was obviously needed to declare them so. They’re PART of the authority of the Church given by God. In both cases, the information is being dictated by the Church about the scriptures, not by the scriptures about the Church.
 
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

The Holy Spirit teaches me the following;

Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. John 17:17

.
Oh, yes, but the first verse, of course, does not specify HOW the HS will teach you, and the second verse does not say only, or alone, or only authoritative, or only sufficient, or only necessary, anywhere.

The second verse also does not say “written word”, and wouldn’t, since “thy word” is Jesus Himself. The written word, and the oral word (which could both be part of “thy word”), were both revealed through THE Word, Jesus.
 
The Church fathers were using the authority of scriptures given to the scriptures by the authority of the Church. I would totally agree with them, and with you, that they were authoritative from the moment they were written.
According to the Fathers, the Scriptures have authority because they come from the Apostles, not because the Church declared that they (acting as the Church) declared them authoritative. By and large, there was agreement on which Scriptures were authoritative. The chief criteria was apostolic origin. Other Scriptures, which were later rejected, were rejected because they were not of apostolic origin. Read Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines” or lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6633 on this issue.
 
I never claimed they WEREN’T authoritative before the councils. They have been authoritative (not soley authoritative) from the moment they were written. God knew that. The Church, being the teaching authority that Jesus established while on earth, and BEFORE any NT scripture was written, knew that as well. You’re quoting the Church fathers (or using them as evidence) to “prove” to me the authoritative value of the scriptures, correct? The Church fathers were using the authority of scriptures given to the scriptures by the authority of the Church. I would totally agree with them, and with you, that they were authoritative from the moment they were written.

The councils did not MAKE them authoritative, they defined which ones were and which ones were not. But the council, in doing so, was also authoritative. And I’d claim that the councils were sufficiently and necessarily authoritative in doing so. They did not, however, get this sufficient and necessary authority from the scriptures, they did not “check” this info to the scriptures, that’s my point when mentioning the establishment of canon. That the Church fathers, with the knowledge from the teaching authority of the Church, quoted scripture as authoritative before the councils, that the councils, with the teaching authority of the Church, defined for the world which scriptures belonged in the canon, BOTH testify to the teaching authority of the Church. OF COURSE the Church thinks that the scriptures are authoritative, but the Church was obviously needed to declare them so. They’re PART of the authority of the Church given by God. In both cases, the information is being dictated by the Church about the scriptures, not by the scriptures about the Church.
However you have argued that we needed the councils before we knew what Scripture was. The early fathers were quoting them authoritatively before those councils. The Church had not “spoken” and they were able to identify and use them.
 
According to the Fathers, the Scriptures have authority because they come from the Apostles, not because the Church declared that they (acting as the Church) declared them authoritative. By and large, there was agreement on which Scriptures were authoritative. The chief criteria was apostolic origin. Other Scriptures, which were later rejected, were rejected because they were not of apostolic origin. Read Kelly’s “Early Christian Doctrines” or lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6633 on this issue.
The apostles were the first teaching authority of the Church. If you want to get into apostolic succession, we’ll have to start another thread.
 
However you have argued that we needed the councils before we knew what Scripture was. The early fathers were quoting them authoritatively before those councils. The Church had not “spoken” and they were able to identify and use them.
Of course the Church had spoken, the apostles were the original teaching authority of the Church, given this authority by Jesus.

The Church fathers were speaking truth taught by the authority of the Church THROUGH the scriptures. The scriptures were not teaching authoritatively through the Church.

The councils came about because some WERE using non-authoritative scripture and claiming that it was truth, and some were misinterpreting the scriptures outside of Church authority. We needed, and received, the authority of the Church to settle these disputes.

The need for the Councils is only one, if not one of the biggest, examples of the need for the teaching authority of the Church. If the scriptures were the authority over everything else after the death of the apostles, why did we even need the Councils? That’s my point, not that they were not authoritative from the beginning.
 
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

The Holy Spirit teaches me the following;

Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth. John 17:17

.
OK, I’ve got to ask since you’re claiming that verse: how does the Holy Spirit bring to your remembrance all the things that Jesus said to His Apostles? :confused:
 
Of course the Church had spoken, the apostles were the original teaching authority of the Church, given this authority by Jesus.

The Church fathers were speaking truth taught by the authority of the Church THROUGH the scriptures. The scriptures were not teaching authoritatively through the Church.

The councils came about because some WERE using non-authoritative scripture and claiming that it was truth, and some were misinterpreting the scriptures outside of Church authority. We needed, and received, the authority of the Church to settle these disputes.

The need for the Councils is only one, if not one of the biggest, examples of the need for the teaching authority of the Church. If the scriptures were the authority over everything else after the death of the apostles, why did we even need the Councils? That’s my point, not that they were not authoritative from the beginning.
The fathers were speaking truth taught by the Apostles from Jesus and the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures. The writing and inspiration of the Scriptures was not written from or on the authority of the Church.

As Irenaeus said:
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.-Irenaeus (Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
 
The fathers were speaking truth taught by the Apostles from Jesus and the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures.
Irenaeus was stating the teaching authority of the apostles. How is this quote going against any of what I’ve said? You keep acting as if I’m arguing against scriptural authority. I’m arguing against the authority of personal interpretation of scripture.
The writing and inspiration of the Scriptures was not written from or on the authority of the Church.
I never said that. I said that the Church’s authority authenticates these scriptures, and that it defines which are truly inspired.

The deposit of faith was given to the Church established by Jesus. The scriptures are one of the divinely inspired tools of communication of this faith.
 
Also, the Bible tells us that the Church is the “pillar of truth”. I don’t think that this goes against what Irenaeus is saying. But you are the one that takes the authority of scripture above any other possible truths, i.e. the Church Fathers. So do they contradict one another? And if they do, which one is more authoritative, according to you, it’s the scriptures.
 
The Scriptures were written by the Apostles as Scripture and therefore authoritative over any council or Tradition. True Councils and Tradition have always obeyed them. The Holy Spirit will not argue with himself. Its why I am not a protestant anymore. Too many mini Popes.
 
The Scriptures were written by the Apostles as Scripture and therefore authoritative over any council or Tradition. True Councils and Tradition have always obeyed them. The Holy Spirit will not argue with himself. Its why I am not a protestant anymore. Too many mini Popes.
I’m confused, are you Catholic?
 
I am officially Old Catholic, but I would love to see all Churches go back to the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top