since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[PRmerger]

They didn’t ? Simple letters from an apostle, no one hinting of them being “scripture” till hundreds of years later ?

What about the letters of Clement?

They were read at some of the liturgies.

Why do you exclude them?

 

[benhur]

The Sacred Scriptures** were not available for reading generally** for well over a thousand years

" Therefore, since we were too weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now come to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scipture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed in and through it you be sought…**.and easy for all men to read and accessible to all men…" **St. Augustine Confessions Book 6 Ch. 5

 

[PRmerger]

Abu;12735577:

" Therefore, since we were too weak to find truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now come to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scipture, unless you wished that both through it you be believed in and through it you be sought…**.and easy for all men to read and accessible to all men…" **

St. Augustine Confessions Book 6 Ch. 5

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure exact same HS mode, that of inspiring Matthew or Mark as they “wrote”, and say for a bishop from Antioch 300 years later voting in favor of canonization of it.

But you do believe men are capable of being infallible, yes?

Matthew was infallible when he wrote his narrative, yes?

Think about that, ben.

Next time you deny that a man could be infallible, remember, “Oh, wait–there are a multitude of men who I actually confess were infallible.”

 

[benhur]

What about the letters of Clement?

They were read at some of the liturgies.

Why do you exclude them?

Were the Corinthians wrong in reading Clement ?

Again, my assertion is not the compilation or universalization of all books, for some were fringe relative to others, or some were universal relative to others. But that compilation did not make them “Holy scripture” rather universally recognized their" Holiness", which began at their writing, not at their canonization. That is my understanding of our history with Writ.

 

[benhur]

But you do believe men are capable of being infallible, yes?

Matthew was infallible when he wrote his narrative, yes?

Think about that, ben.

Next time you deny that a man could be infallible, remember, “Oh, wait–there are a multitude of men who I actually confess were infallible.”

Well OK But who is denying anything. Last I heard the CC limits the unction from the Holy One a lot more than other churches( eg. “it was only for the apostles” ,or a pope or our magisterium or successive bishops, the anointed priesthood only).

 

[Abu]

Facts for benhur:
**The Sacred Scriptures were not available for reading generally for well over a thousand years.**The learned and saintly, as Augustine was to become, were able to access the scarce hand-copied sections when available.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. **Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town **but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1992, p 30-32].

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.

 

[PRmerger]

Were the Corinthians wrong in reading Clement ?

No more than you or I are wrong in reading it.

I mean, I assume that your pastor has not made any declarations that it’s wrong to read it, yes?

Again, my assertion is not the compilation or universalization of all books, for some were fringe relative to others, or some were universal relative to others. But that compilation did not make them “Holy scripture” rather universally recognized their" Holiness", which began at their writing, not at their canonization. That is my understanding of our history with Writ.

That is correct. The CC does not make the claim that it became Scripture only when she recognized it as such.

The Church’s position is that she discerned, under the guidance of the HS, what was (already) theopneustos.

And our position here as Catholics speaking to Protestants who claim to be Sola Scriptura is: your position is untenable. Each and every time you quote from the NT you are actually deferring to Sacred Tradition.

We are just asking that you be intellectually honest and acknowledge this.

You would not know any other way that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos, except that you are deferring to the authority of the CC.

That’s all we’re asking you to do at this point.

 

[Cathoholic]

Abu is absolutely correct

(People) were able to access the scarce hand-copied sections when available

It allegedly took three Catholic-Monk years of work to copy and pass on a Bible in the middle ages long after St. Augustine.

Some may argue that fact. But they won’t argue Bibles were just “cranked out” with a “printing press” (as they were not invented yet).

Promulgating and passing down Sacred Scripture through the ages, took many hours of HARD Catholic labor.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They didn’t ? Simple letters from an apostle, no one hinting of them being “scripture” till hundreds of years later ?

Ben meet St. Justin (~140AD)

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

(Bold mine)

:tiphat:

 

[benhur]

Ben meet St. Justin (~140AD)

(Bold mine)

:tiphat:

Thank you . Sorry but my discernment level is quite low lately and not sure if you know that you are preaching to the choir. Hopefully you agree with what my question(s) as rhetorical and are giving me "backup’’ so to speak. if so it is highly appreciated.

Facts for benhur:
**The Sacred Scriptures were not available for reading generally for well over a thousand years.**The learned and saintly, as Augustine was to become, were able to access the scarce hand-copied sections when available.

That is a broad stoke that I prefer to rest on Augustine’s statement of accessible to all, not withstanding relative scarcity per today’s availability.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading.

Yes for the most part but not always, really (2000 years is a long time and a broad sweeping statement does not suffice here).

 

[Tomoko]

They didn’t ? Simple letters from an apostle, no one hinting of them being “scripture” till hundreds of years later ?

Why would they?

1. They were, as you say, simple letters. If the writings of the apostles were regarded as Scripture automatically, what happened to the other letters? (1 Cor 5:9)
2. Paul was also far from universally well received in the communities he wrote to. (2 Cor 10:10 - there are some who say … He is unimpressive and his speech amounts to nothing; 2 Cor 11 - people are ignoring Paul in favour of false apostles; 2 Tim 4:14 - opposition from Alexander; 2 Tim 1:15 “you know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me”). If his authority isn’t acknowledged, why would they treat his letters as Scripture?
3. As well as Gentile Christians there were, as we know, many Jewish converts in the churches. Given the high regard for Scripture in Judaism, is it likely that they would be happy just to add a few letters to it when they arrived? Letters that don’t always speak of God, but contain specific rebukes, administration, even travel instructions?

The point of this thread was that, following SS, we need not look outside Scripture for anything. But, the very creation of Scripture relies on Tradition. So, why is it ok to rely on Tradition for that and nothing else?

 

[PRmerger]

So, why is it ok to rely on Tradition for that and nothing else?

Indeed.

And why is it ok to see men simply *can’t *be infallible, except when we say they were indeed infallible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, the anonymous author of Hebrews, etc etc etc)

And that men can’t be infallible, except that they, somehow, mysteriously, were able to discern the canon of the NT correctly (unless these Protestants want to profess that the 27-book canon of the NT is erroneous perhaps?)

 

[benhur]

Why would they?

1. They were, as you say, simple letters. If the writings of the apostles were regarded as Scripture automatically, what happened to the other letters? (1 Cor 5:9)
2. Paul was also far from universally well received in the communities he wrote to. (2 Cor 10:10 - there are some who say … He is unimpressive and his speech amounts to nothing; 2 Cor 11 - people are ignoring Paul in favour of false apostles; 2 Tim 4:14 - opposition from Alexander; 2 Tim 1:15 “you know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me”). If his authority isn’t acknowledged, why would they treat his letters as Scripture?
3. As well as Gentile Christians there were, as we know, many Jewish converts in the churches. Given the high regard for Scripture in Judaism, is it likely that they would be happy just to add a few letters to it when they arrived? Letters that don’t always speak of God, but contain specific rebukes, administration, even travel instructions?

The point of this thread was that, following SS, we need not look outside Scripture for anything. But, the very creation of Scripture relies on Tradition. So, why is it ok to rely on Tradition for that and nothing else?

Then why isn’t everything “tradition” ?

 

[PRmerger]

Then why isn’t everything “tradition” ?

Everything* *is *Tradition, ben.

Scripture is simply Tradition that was put to writ.

*Universe of discourse when we’re talking about “everything”: what God has chosen to reveal to us.

 

[clem456]

Then why isn’t everything “tradition” ?

Tradition, Scripture, and the living proclamation of the Gospel, are all based in the person of Christ. So while I don’t precisely agree with PR’s wording above, the gist of it is undeniable.
Scripture comes out of Christ’s life (the Word Made Flesh). He lived (and lives) a life that was given to a community. Scripture grew out of the life of that community. It is inseparable from Tradition. Tradition came before Scripture, and Scripture derived from it. Biblical scholars pretty much agree on the timeline. Scripture is only God breathed because God breathed life into a community. Without the community you have nothing. God did not come to meet us in a book, he came as a person with full human nature.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The Word is a person.
And yes, please note I am using Scripture to reinforce Tradition, and vice versa.

 

[benhur]

Why would they?

1. They were, as you say, simple letters.

Actually you mentioned the word simply when you posted “simply letters from an authority” "

If the writings of the apostles were regarded as Scripture **automatically, **what happened to the other letters? (1 Cor 5:9)

Now its either canonization 300 years later or “**automatic” **? Nothing in between ?

They did keep this letter, why ? Was it a bishop from Jerusalem or Rome that discerned for them ?

I would not suggest there was more than one letter lost , nor would I suggest every chicken scratch from any apostles is "divine’’, for apparently the lost letter was not intended for us, and what was intended for them and us, is with us.

Practice makes perfect ?

1. Paul was also far from universally well received in the communities he wrote to. (2 Cor 10:10 - there are some who say … He is unimpressive and his speech amounts to nothing; 2 Cor 11 - people are ignoring Paul in favour of false apostles; 2 Tim 4:14 - opposition from Alexander; 2 Tim 1:15 “you know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me”). If his authority isn’t acknowledged, why would they treat his letters as Scripture?

I thought you stated that they were, “simply letters from an authority that were read out…” ?

I do not say scripture was “automatically” written by any apostles/disciple, nor do I say it was automatically received as inspiration, just as I do not say it is automatically understood. The workings of the Spirit are at His timing and as He works in and thru us. It can be instantaneous or not. It can be with a first letter or a second.

Given the high regard for Scripture in Judaism, is it likely that they would be happy just to add a few letters to it when they arrived?

No, but 300 years ? Tradition shows it was within a generation that the letters were held highly, and referred to as scripture etc.

Judaism did not "canonize’’ their scripture so while they would be properly prudent, they would not also need institutional authenticating as like a council…

Letters that don’t always speak of God, but contain specific rebukes, administration, even travel instructions?

As if there is none of this in OT ?

The point of this thread was that, following SS, we need not look outside Scripture for anything. But, the very creation of Scripture relies on Tradition. So, why is it ok to rely on Tradition for that and nothing else?

And why after this would you not rely on Scripture for any future developments/corrections of doctrine and practice ? That was the purpose of it in the first place. I would also suggest that is just what happened, that anything future " developments were authenticated supremely by Holy Writ, and that became tradition, again.

As an example, Arianism was defeated by the tradition of wielding Holy Writ, either at council or in letters or before an emperor or a congregation (other scriptural traditions).

 

[Tomoko]

Actually you mentioned the word simply when you posted “simply letters from an authority” "Now its either canonization 300 years later or “**automatic” **? Nothing in between ?

No, I said they were simply letters. You said they were simple letters.

I didn’t suggest that there was nothing in between. You inferred that they would have considered these letters as scripture when they were received, because they came from an apostle.

They did keep this letter, why ? Was it a bishop from Jerusalem or Rome that discerned for them ?

We don’t know if a bishop had an (name removed by moderator)ut, but I would imagine it’s more than likely. In any case, the Church discerned to keep it. The Church made of fallible men - the Tradition of the Church which SS likes to deny.

I would not suggest there was more than one letter lost , nor would I suggest every chicken scratch from any apostles is "divine’’, for apparently the lost letter was not intended for us, and what was intended for them and us, is with us.

So Tradition decided between the “chicken scratches” and the letters worth keeping?

Practice makes perfect ?

God entrusts the written revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God to practice makes perfect?

I thought you stated that they were, “simply letters from an authority that were read out…” ?

Ironically, you’re taking me out of context and misinterpreting my use of the word authority. Paul was an authority as an apostle. But his authority was not universally accepted. Two different things. My bishop is an authority, but plenty of people ignore what he says (don’t accept his authority).

I do not say scripture was “automatically” written by any apostles/disciple, nor do I say it was automatically received as inspiration, just as I do not say it is automatically understood. The workings of the Spirit are at His timing and as He works in and thru us. It can be instantaneous or not. It can be with a first letter or a second.

So the HS works through directing the Church in their discernment, and that’s not Holy Tradition?

No, but 300 years ? Tradition shows it was within a generation that the letters were held highly, and referred to as scripture etc.

I never said they weren’t highly regarded until 300 years later. You’re reading something into the text which isn’t there (ironically again). Tradition decided it. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t appeal to Tradition to show that a letter was accepted as Scripture and then say that Tradition isn’t valid.

Judaism did not "canonize’’ their scripture so while they would be properly prudent, they would not also need institutional authenticating as like a council…As if there is none of this in OT ?

The Jews rigorously preserved their Scriptures during periods of exile and persecution. The lack of significant textual variants in the Hebrew Scriptures is astonishing considering. They were much more than prudent with their Scriptures.

There are comparable parts in the OT? Where are the OT epistles?

And why after this would you not rely on Scripture for any future developments/corrections of doctrine and practice ? That was the purpose of it in the first place. I would also suggest that is just what happened, that anything future " developments were authenticated supremely by Holy Writ, and that became tradition, again.

The purpose of Scripture is to point people to Christ. It’s not a reference manual for doctrine. How can it authenticate that which it doesn’t discuss? Should we mix water and wine in the chalice? Should a Christian take on civic service, or join the army? Why were there so many arguments in the early church if it was as simple as look in the book?

As an example, Arianism was defeated by the tradition of wielding Holy Writ, either at council or in letters or before an emperor or a congregation (other scriptural traditions).

Arianism wasn’t defeated by an early form of SS, which hadn’t been invented yet. Arianism became an issue in the first place because someone wanted to break with the Tradition of the Church and follow his own interpretation of Scripture, and it was a popular and long lasting heresy (still around today!) precisely because Arius was able to make a good case for his position from Sciripture (John 14:28 etc). Tradition is, and always has been, God’s safeguard against wacky, independent interpretation. Otherwise, it’s possible to make Scripture say pretty much anything you want it to.

 

[Tomoko]

And why after this would you not rely on Scripture for any future developments/corrections of doctrine and practice ? That was the purpose of it in the first place. I would also suggest that is just what happened, that anything future " developments were authenticated supremely by Holy Writ, and that became tradition, again.

Ben, the OP of this thread was that SS states we need never look outside the Bible to decide matters of faith, even with modern issues.

Suppose I am seeking an abortion. Friend A tells me that they’ve read the Bible and decided that its ok for me to have one. The Bible doesn’t mention abortion. Life begins with breath (Gen 2:7), not in the womb. A foetus isn’t considered a full person (Ex 21:22-23), so it isn’t murder. God gives us full dominion over everything on earth (Gen 1:27-28), so we have free will to decide what to do with our pregnancies. In fact, sometimes killing children is encouraged! (Ps 137:9, and just about every OT conquest of the people in the promised land).

No, says Friend B, the Bible opposes abortion because all humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), God has a high regard for all human life (Ps 8) and the child in the womb is already a unique human being (Ps 139:13,15).

Again, I don’t want to derail the thread with an abortion debate but how, without appealing to outside Tradition, could I decide between two opposing views with equally convincing Scriptural arguments? (the pro-abortion ones come from a real article, btw, so this is really an issue people are facing).

This is where SS falls down. How do I decide who is right and wrong here? What about the recent plans to combine three strands of DNA to cure diseases in embryos? You can make a good argument from Scripture to prohibit mucking around with creation and destroying other embryos. You can make a good argument for curing diseases, too. How do I decide?

 

[benhur]

]No, I said they were simply letters. You said they were simple letters.

I didn’t suggest that there was nothing in between. You inferred that they would have considered these letters as scripture when they were received, because they came from an apostle.

I like when people say this to me, so I will to you, “fair enough”.

We don’t know if a bishop had an (name removed by moderator)ut, but I would imagine it’s more than likely.

Agreed. Thank you for not saying" final" or “only” but certainly as in good shepherding

.In any case, the Church discerned to keep it.

Agreed, The lay and clergy alike, as one Corinthian/Galatian,etc., church, (and later one catholic church).

The Church made of fallible men - the Tradition of the Church which SS likes to deny.

Not sure that is accurate depiction of SS, which can only be applied after said scripture is in place (or allows for it). That was the reason for it being "discerned "in the first place, to be authoritative. I do not think one Corinthian thought he then had equal authority to God’s Word, now written. Ability to discern yes, but is that authority beyond just that ?

So Tradition decided between the “chicken scratches” and the letters worth keeping?

Yes a tradition, a church, bound by that Writ now.

God entrusts the written revelation of the incarnation of the Son of God to practice makes perfect?

We practice, expound, preach, exemplify, grow in such giftings/offices, but the Father in heaven reveals perfectly thru unglorified men, even the ecclesia…

PS- that was supposed to be humorous, about Paul “practicing” with the first lost letter.