B
benhur
Guest
Magdalena, there is a time for milk and a time for meat. There is a time when others digest food for you, and when you must digest for yourself.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Nor did I claim you did either. But zero scripturalness means not just explicit but implicit, even to be harmonious with.
Yes, all churches claim this.
Few churches believe that.
Modern times ? There is nothing new under the sun. Sexual issues, abortion, slavery, drugs, violence, corruption, division, false prophets are modern problems ?
Well as "zero’’ clues in scripture ? Sorry, but we are both right in need for discernment in council, and I would add need for the ruling to be in harmony with, even as prophesied in, Scripture.
That word “only” goes along with folks arguing saying ," you never" or "you always’’, quite superfluous and off the mark.
And would you be able to correct the false argument via scripture or only by what tradition says ?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Show me otherwise then. If you want to respond to my posts then give me these scriptures where the Bible lays claim to that authority and explain and defend them. So far no one on here has done so…
Irrelevant and off topic.
B
benhur
Guest
Thanks for (name removed by moderator)ut. Sounds however very much formed unfreely, constrained even skewed by Catholic /Protestant polemic paradigms.
Even JW’s claim the same, their one true faith, thru out the world, down to same liturgical practice of the week and month for all.
You may say we dodge “authority”, and it is a possible somewhat, just as for sure we do submit more so also. We may say the CC dodges scriptural authority, and that is possible somewhat, just as sure as you submit to it more so also.
You also skew, enlarge the differences (though understandable but still skewed) by 40,000 churches, while at the same time minimize or neglect any drawbacks that we understandably see in CC.
It took and still takes two to tango and two to untangle.
Blessings Forefather.
B
benhur
Guest
There is a time for milk and a time for meat. There is a time for food “digested” by others, and a time for gestating ourselves.
B
benhur
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No…it has not…and anyone who honestly wants to defend SS should step up. The only scripture thus far offered were challenged and then I requested clarification, which was never provided even though the verses were out of context and shown not to say what the poster’s interpretation asserted.
If you have specific scriptures that you believe ascribe the final and ultimate authority to the Bible then you need to provide them because so far it seems more like a lot of dodging and weaving than authentic apologetics for SS,
If the Bible supports it then it should be pretty easy to show me where that is, if not…then the only honest option is to admit that it’s not in the Bible and therefore, by its own premise cannot be a correct Christian doctrine.
I’ve read the bible many times (and even with all the books in ours) I have not seen anywhere where it lays claim to being the final and ultimate authority…and I’m not alone, as has been amply demonstrated by the other Catholics here on this thread. Furthermore, no Christians believed and taught SS until the 16th century and even then they could not support it from the Bible itself with people having to do some kind of mental http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/flip_emoticon_jfo.gif of misinterpretation.
Those of you who accept and believe it…it’s your doctrine, so since to you the Bible is that final and ultimate authority…it falls to you to explain and defend it. If you cannot…then the only honest option is to admit it’s wrong and follow where that truth leads you.
Our Lord Jesus Christ said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” so following the truth can only lead to Him. So bring it on…
B
benhur
Guest
You got me and feel quite stumped. Like the healed blind man before the Sanhedrin questioning him by what authority had things been done even perceived. All I know is since the beginning of writ, it has stood as Word, first to Israel then church and to the world.nothing trumps it,save the next Word which is put to Writ,and last I heard it ended with Revelations.just because the church , like Israel determined Writ does not mean she is above it. Israel never thought herself infallible in the same way she looked at writ,and we error in doing so now. That we can be led even inspired in further applications does not make us above writ. Hard to prove only further Word can come from Rome infallibly,that only her interpretations are infallible, that a council approved by her only is infallible. I do not belittle CC as I do not belittle old Israel. Both will complete their missions ,as He so pleases, perfectly…
No one denies the unwritten Word whether thru church or prophet etc. just deny the same infallibility as given to writ.Protestants do what u do, test all things . Scripture is quite implicit, at the very least, as being the better benchmark than Tradition.
S
St_Redemption
Guest
Is there a great book on this topic? An unbiased book where both sides are giving their story and rebutting? This is some reading I need to do, Thanks friends 
S
St_Redemption
Guest
Or if somebody could point me to a great debate. Not just A DEBATE. ive been listening to them for days. Are any of them special…or the best?
Moreso, would like an unbiased bbok.
Moreso, would like an unbiased bbok.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I don’t think you can even say this with scriptural support.
What the Catholic Church does say that we have the “Deposit of Faith” which is best explained by careful reading of that link.
S
SjMelnychuk
Guest
I used to believe Sola Scriptura teachings until I came across the verse that said, “the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth,” Now, if you really hold to Sola Scriptura teachings shouldn’t you then therefore see the CHURCH as the pillar and foundation of truth and then therefore TRUST in the CHURCH a little more than say … oh … one’s own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture? Because really, if we’re talking Sola Scriptura, we’re trusting more in our own infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture and besides all this, what did the Church do for the majority of the Churches history because it hasn’t been until relatively recent times the Bible became easily accessible to everyone. So, then doesn’t TRADITION make sense, because before any letter was received into the hands of every common believer TRADITION is all the church HAD!
So in actuality, the Church had both the OT, the letters of the Apostles, plus Tradition, plus Apostolic Authority. Seems far more logical than trusting in my own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture… or trusting in somebody else’s fallible teachings.
And then, I can recall in my Hermeneutics class. As I’m learning how to interpret Sacred Scripture, I was encouraged to look at various commentaries etc … Strongs Concordance, Commentaries by various Theologians etc but if we’re trusting in Theologians we’re still essentially trusting in a form of authority. Like for example, when I attended a Pentecostal Bible College and a member of the PAOC I trusted in Apostolic Authority… the Apostolic Authority of the Pentecostal Churches! But then when debating Sacred Scripture, I kept on going back to what the Church had been historically teaching. It got to the point where I began to question, what was my authority and how biblical was Sola Scripura if we’re fallible in our own interpretation… year after year trusting in Apostolic Authority, Sacred Scripture, and Tradition together made far greater sense.
If all the Church had before the Bible was TRADITION than obviously the Bible is not all we need, obviously we need more than just the Bible because relying on just the Bible essentially, as stated above, we end up trusting in, if not our own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture than the fallible interpretation of others… but if Jesus saw fit to establish a Church than I believe without a doubt that God would see fit to preserve the Church that He established. I can’t believe that a Church that is suppose to be the pillar and foundation of truth would ever need a Reformation to begin with.
So in actuality, the Church had both the OT, the letters of the Apostles, plus Tradition, plus Apostolic Authority. Seems far more logical than trusting in my own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture… or trusting in somebody else’s fallible teachings.
And then, I can recall in my Hermeneutics class. As I’m learning how to interpret Sacred Scripture, I was encouraged to look at various commentaries etc … Strongs Concordance, Commentaries by various Theologians etc but if we’re trusting in Theologians we’re still essentially trusting in a form of authority. Like for example, when I attended a Pentecostal Bible College and a member of the PAOC I trusted in Apostolic Authority… the Apostolic Authority of the Pentecostal Churches! But then when debating Sacred Scripture, I kept on going back to what the Church had been historically teaching. It got to the point where I began to question, what was my authority and how biblical was Sola Scripura if we’re fallible in our own interpretation… year after year trusting in Apostolic Authority, Sacred Scripture, and Tradition together made far greater sense.
If all the Church had before the Bible was TRADITION than obviously the Bible is not all we need, obviously we need more than just the Bible because relying on just the Bible essentially, as stated above, we end up trusting in, if not our own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture than the fallible interpretation of others… but if Jesus saw fit to establish a Church than I believe without a doubt that God would see fit to preserve the Church that He established. I can’t believe that a Church that is suppose to be the pillar and foundation of truth would ever need a Reformation to begin with.
S
seagal
Guest
I don’t know if you’d find a whole book solely on the topic of sola scriptura. But Devin Rose has a book called The Protestant’s Dilemma in which he outlines the protestant view of various dogmas (including sola sciptura), brings them to their logical conclusion, and then shows how the conclusion is untenable.
T
TheSeeker2014
Guest
I know you are asking for books, but I feel I should share this piece of info that I recently read,Since I see you were not always a Catholic (as I am not but every open minded and learning)
Second Edition (Current Book) Catechism of the Catholic Church
article 2 83 Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions.
"The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium."
In other words referring to sola scriptura, the New Testament or the whole Bible at that is Tradition in and of itself. It was passed down Orally for a while before anything was written down… then once it is written down, it is often re written (but not changed -except in translating languages it is possible out of error) over and over through centuries.
And the books that are contained in the Bible were decided by Councils (held by the Catholic Church) that were held and now as a result we have the Cannon.
Later, after division, was some of the books taken out for the protestants and I think there was a meeting, but I cannot recall for sure. Either case, this ‘new’ bible is now made into a new tradition.
For someone to reject all Tradition, they would not be able to accept the Bible (either bible). Or if they do, do not fully follow it, but accepting parts and not others is seen as very wrong in most protestant eyes anyway, as they believe the whole bible should be accepted.
Hope this piece helps in some way in your journey.
Second Edition (Current Book) Catechism of the Catholic Church
article 2 83 Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions.
"The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium."
In other words referring to sola scriptura, the New Testament or the whole Bible at that is Tradition in and of itself. It was passed down Orally for a while before anything was written down… then once it is written down, it is often re written (but not changed -except in translating languages it is possible out of error) over and over through centuries.
And the books that are contained in the Bible were decided by Councils (held by the Catholic Church) that were held and now as a result we have the Cannon.
Later, after division, was some of the books taken out for the protestants and I think there was a meeting, but I cannot recall for sure. Either case, this ‘new’ bible is now made into a new tradition.
For someone to reject all Tradition, they would not be able to accept the Bible (either bible). Or if they do, do not fully follow it, but accepting parts and not others is seen as very wrong in most protestant eyes anyway, as they believe the whole bible should be accepted.
Hope this piece helps in some way in your journey.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Duplicate topics merged. Carry on.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Reason Two of Five Reasons Why 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 Does Not Teach Sola Scriptura (continued from post 704)
Reason Two: Look what the passage says about Scripture.
Break down the verse to just 2nd Timothy 3:16 (that’s the part that deals with Scripture itself) and look at what the verse says specifically about Scripture itself.
2nd TIMOTHY 3:16 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, . . .
(Also be sure to ask yourself what DOESN’T the verse say about Scripture.)
What does the verse teach about Scripture?
That Scripture is profitable for . . . .
What doesn’t the verse teach about Scripture?
The verse does NOT teach or even suggest we are to use Scripture ALONE!
Reason Two: Look what the passage says about Scripture.
Break down the verse to just 2nd Timothy 3:16 (that’s the part that deals with Scripture itself) and look at what the verse says specifically about Scripture itself.
2nd TIMOTHY 3:16 16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, . . .
(Also be sure to ask yourself what DOESN’T the verse say about Scripture.)
What does the verse teach about Scripture?
That Scripture is profitable for . . . .
- Teaching
- Reproof (correction)
- Training in righteousness
What doesn’t the verse teach about Scripture?
The verse does NOT teach or even suggest we are to use Scripture ALONE!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Reason Three: Look what the passage says about “the man of God”.
Break down the verse to just 2nd Timothy 3:17 (that’s the part that deals with “the man of God” NOT Scripture itself).
2nd TIMOTHY 3:17 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Does 2nd Timothy 3:17 mean “alone”? No.
Why doesn’t it say “alone”? Because that would be erroneous contradicting other verses and adding to these verses.
Could there be any other “equipment”? Yes.
Does the Bible teach about anything else to complete “the man of God”? Yes.
Read James 1:4 (“steadfastness” is sometimes translated as “patience,” either translation is fine).
JAMES 1:4 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
The fact that a different Greek word is used in the two verses is irrelevant.
Would you conclude from this passage that all we need is to be patient? I don’t need written Tradition (Sacred Scripture), I don’t need an oral Tradition, I don’t need a magisterium, I don’t need faith, I don’t need hope, I don’t need charity, etc. etc.?? . . .
. . . . I can just sit around and be “patient” and I am "complete?
No! Of course not.
The verse in James 1:4 is NOT telling us “patience ALONE” is it?
Likewise 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 is ALSO not trying to assert Scripture ALONE.
Here is a partial list of some other things that complete Christians:
JAMES 1:4 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
JAMES 1:4 (KJV) 4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Should we throw the word “alone” into James 1:4 when the word “alone” isn’t there?
Does the Bible teach “sola patience-ia”? No.
Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? No.
Should we throw the word “alone” into 2nd Timothy 3:17 when the word “alone” isn’t there? No.
Break down the verse to just 2nd Timothy 3:17 (that’s the part that deals with “the man of God” NOT Scripture itself).
2nd TIMOTHY 3:17 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
- The Scriptures discussed here equip the man of God for completeness.
- The Scriptures discussed here equip the man of God for every good work.
Does 2nd Timothy 3:17 mean “alone”? No.
Why doesn’t it say “alone”? Because that would be erroneous contradicting other verses and adding to these verses.
Could there be any other “equipment”? Yes.
Does the Bible teach about anything else to complete “the man of God”? Yes.
Read James 1:4 (“steadfastness” is sometimes translated as “patience,” either translation is fine).
JAMES 1:4 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
The fact that a different Greek word is used in the two verses is irrelevant.
Would you conclude from this passage that all we need is to be patient? I don’t need written Tradition (Sacred Scripture), I don’t need an oral Tradition, I don’t need a magisterium, I don’t need faith, I don’t need hope, I don’t need charity, etc. etc.?? . . .
. . . . I can just sit around and be “patient” and I am "complete?
No! Of course not.
The verse in James 1:4 is NOT telling us “patience ALONE” is it?
Likewise 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 is ALSO not trying to assert Scripture ALONE.
Here is a partial list of some other things that complete Christians:
- Hebrews 2:10 tells us that Jesus’ suffering makes us perfect.
- Matthew 19:18 Jesus tells a rich man if he is to be perfect he should sell all his possessions.
- 2nd Corinthians 12:9 God’s power is made perfect in our weakness.
- St. John’s joy is complete with a face-to-face discussion in 2nd John 1:12 (does this mean Scripture doesn’t cause St. John’s joy to be complete? No).
- St. Paul’s suffering helps complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions in Colossians 1:24.
- In Revelation 6:11 martyrdom completes the brethren.
JAMES 1:4 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
JAMES 1:4 (KJV) 4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Should we throw the word “alone” into James 1:4 when the word “alone” isn’t there?
Does the Bible teach “sola patience-ia”? No.
Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? No.
Should we throw the word “alone” into 2nd Timothy 3:17 when the word “alone” isn’t there? No.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
I’ll get back to the Five Reasons later (assuming the post remains open). In the meantime . . .
(What I call) . . . Luther’s Lament
Later in his life, Luther lamented about people picking up a Bible and thinking they could adequately interpret it correctly (he did not apply this reservation to himself, but he DID express concerns over this occurrence with others).
Luther was distressed as he saw these people thinking that they themselves and their Bibles were so infallible, that some of these Bible-toters think they themselves had such a share of the Holy Ghost, that they think they have “swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all”.
From Steve Ray (here) and minor editing for web-sensitive wording and syntax by me . . . .
(What I call) . . . Luther’s Lament
Later in his life, Luther lamented about people picking up a Bible and thinking they could adequately interpret it correctly (he did not apply this reservation to himself, but he DID express concerns over this occurrence with others).
Luther was distressed as he saw these people thinking that they themselves and their Bibles were so infallible, that some of these Bible-toters think they themselves had such a share of the Holy Ghost, that they think they have “swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all”.
From Steve Ray (here) and minor editing for web-sensitive wording and syntax by me . . . .
You can read more firsthand from Steve Ray’s website here.
B
benhur
Guest
Try this article modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19Is there a great book on this topic? An unbiased book where both sides are giving their story and rebutting? This is some reading I need to do, Thanks friends
I would clarify a few things about it, but overall was good.
PS. do not know anything about writer or site, only read article, and warning, it does not hold to todays CC view nor that of "solos’ but “sola” yes.
B
benhur
Guest
I don’t think the first reformers believed they were outside thy body of Christian faith. It is not like the church had been born the day before and they went another way, or said anything that had not been said before, implicitly or explicitly (just as CC claims). There were 1500 years of “History”. Just look at the challenges the church had not even after 100 years, as evidenced by Revelations.
Of course the church is the pillar of truth just as Israel was in OT. It certainly is not in Buddhism or other faiths. But the church is not above or even equal to Writ, just as Israel was not.They have different functions. What we the church hold up is our very essence, God in us, and in His Word, and the Holy Spirit.
The first church had the OT and apostolic teaching, which was quickly put to writing, all forming a body of faith.This tradition held Scripture as the final norm. The Israelites did so also, even though Writ was still being written. They did not say “we have operated without Writ before, or with less of it, therefore it can not be the final norm.” Should we have any less of an attitude, especially since no more cam be written ?
To be scriptural is the tradition of the body of faith, and of the Pillar.
Amen, just that I would rearrange to say OT, Letters, and Apostles teaching was the Tradition.
But you are, and we all are to a point . One can just as easily say some trust in their own fallible interpretation of what is tradition or which tradition, which church.
Thank you for sharing. You can’t say it any better. I feel like the scripture that suggests that let every man be called a liar before God is, for only God is true. That is a tough paradigm to crack, that all others are wrong save the CC, and presuming God would be faithless otherwise.
Infallibilty as CC teaches today is "new"and not found in early church The OT is evidence that God is faithful in His own way, and sometimes not like how we think, even as a corporate body, the status quo, the establishment think. Why else would He ask if He will find faith upon His return if His institution is so infallible ? Oh the gates of hell shall not prevail, but all it takes is for a small remnant, even one congregation, to be left standing for God to technically fulfill that.
Blessings
- Status