Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions.......

[Augsburg1530]

Can you give an example of a Catholic dogma/doctrine that you feel is in conflict with Scripture?

The doctrine of justification, the veneration of the saints, purgatory.

There are others that I don’t believe in, yet I wouldn’t say they conflict with Scripture. A good example would be the Assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

The doctrine of justification, the veneration of the saints, purgatory

Let’s just take the veneration of the saints. What Scriptures does it conflict with?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Could you provide a source for this please?

So, in the end, how was it that Arianism was declared a heresy (who declared it so, if not the pope?) and the dogma of the Trinity, as we believe it, was preserved?

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

Arianism was defeated mainly through the work of Athanasius, St. Basil, the two Gregories and St. Hilary. It was eventually condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381 (which was not presided over by the Pope, but by Meletius of Antioch). The Pope then received the Council (which made it ecumenical).

How do you know that Athanasius was proved right?

Really, you believe in the Dogma of the Trinity only because it’s been proclaimed by the Catholic Church, no? For it cannot be deduced by reason. It cannot be found in Scripture (did not Arius provide many a verse which supported his heresy?)

I’m sorry, but I would not accept that Scripture would in any way confirm Arianism. Sure, they could pluck a passage here and there to support their views. However, the totality of Scripture clearly teaches the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Arians could not take all of Scripture and argue their case. Athanasius made this point repeatedly (see his tract against the Arians for his comments on this).

You only know Athanasius was “proved right” because you acknowledge, again, the authority of the Catholic Church.

I acknowledge that Athanasius was right regardless of what the collective bishops said about the matter. It still wouldn’t answer how I would know he was right if I relied solely on the Magisterium.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Let’s just take the veneration of the saints. What Scriptures does it conflict with?

Biblically, prayer is always offered to God, and is a form of worship. All religions view prayer as an act of worship to their god(s) since they contain petitions, confession of sin, requests of intercession, etc., things which are received and answered by God, not by created things. Also, prayer is not the same thing as talking to someone face-to-face. Prayer is a humble petition to the Lord and not to a friend who’s in the same room with you or on the other end of the phone – or in heaven. Prayer is offered to God, never to any created thing. To do so is to offer worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry.

Having said that, however, I have no issue with the fact that the saints in heaven intercede for the Church Militant. That would be a separate issue from veneration.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Also, could you please address this point?

Sorry, should have clarified. The entire church meaning the church as a community of faith down through history. The average peasant is part of the church. The word “church” in Scripture does not denote a caste system.

And this point?

Thanks!

I have no issues with saying the bishops received and accepted the canon of Scripture. That would just be history.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Augsburg, are we agreed that were it not for the authority of the CC you would not know that Hebrews is inspired?

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Hebrews would be inspired regardless of whether anyone accepted it or not. It was inspired when it was written, not when it was received. My confidence in the fact that I know it’s inspired is not based on the authority of the church, but rather, in God making sure that His word is known to His church.

 

[joe370]

The doctrine of justification, the veneration of the saints, purgatory.

There are others that I don’t believe in, yet I wouldn’t say they conflict with Scripture. A good example would be the Assumption.

Hey Augsburg, if you mean, using the word purgatory then yes, you are right. However, eastern orthodox Christians believe in some sort of place of purgation, albeit undefined, just as they believe that Mary was sinless, albeit undefined; they even believe in her assumption. They certainly pray for the dead, and those in heaven don’t need it and you know the rest…

Veneration of saints: Saint Christopher is a saint venerated by Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, listed as a martyr killed in the reign of the 3rd century Roman emperor Decius (reigned 249–251).

Orthodox teaching explicitly denies justification by faith alone and includes good works as necessary in justification. It also defines justification as including the concept of being transformed into the likeness of God, through union with Christ. They don’t believe that they become God. What am I missing here?

 

[joe370]

Hebrews would be inspired regardless of whether anyone accepted it or not. It was inspired when it was written, not when it was received. My confidence in the fact that I know it’s inspired is not based on the authority of the church, but rather, in God making sure that His word is known to His church.

So catholic tradition had nothing to do with identifying that book as being written by Paul?

 

[Augsburg1530]

So catholic tradition had nothing to do with identifying that book as being written by Paul?

Chances are it wasn’t written by Paul. However, of course it had something to do with promulgating, preaching, and accepting the book, in a historical sense. However, that doesn’t make the book canonical. It’s inspiration makes it canonical.

 

[PRmerger]

Chances are it wasn’t written by Paul. However, of course it had something to do with promulgating, preaching, and accepting the book, in a historical sense. However, that doesn’t make the book canonical. It’s inspiration makes it canonical.

Indeed. And how do you know it was inspired?

That’s the real, nitty-gritty question, Augsburg.

How do you know that Hebrews was inspired? * Especially* since there is no known certainty of authorship.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hey Augsburg, if you mean, using the word purgatory then yes, you are right. However, eastern orthodox Christians believe in some sort of place of purgation, albeit undefined, just as they believe that Mary was sinless, albeit undefined; they even believe in her assumption. They certainly pray for the dead, and those in heaven don’t need it and you know the rest…

Veneration of saints: Saint Christopher is a saint venerated by Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, listed as a martyr killed in the reign of the 3rd century Roman emperor Decius (reigned 249–251).

Orthodox teaching explicitly denies justification by faith alone and includes good works as necessary in justification. It also defines justification as including the concept of being transformed into the likeness of God, through union with Christ. They don’t believe that they become God. What am I missing here?

Not all Orthodox believe in a purification state like purgatory. Some do, others outright rejection. Orthodoxy allows it to be debated as a theory, and has not dogmatized or outright condemned it.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, but I would not accept that Scripture would in any way confirm Arianism. Sure, they could pluck a passage here and there to support their views. However, the totality of Scripture clearly teaches the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

There’s millions of JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, and Jews who would disagree with you.

Clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is, well, a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

I acknowledge that Athanasius was right regardless of what the collective bishops said about the matter. It still wouldn’t answer how I would know he was right if I relied solely on the Magisterium.

You acknowledge Athanasius was right because Scripture is clear about the Trinity?

Again, clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

The Holy Spirit chose to reveal this Truth fully through the Church, not through the Scriptures.

 

[joe370]

Chances are it wasn’t written by Paul. However, of course it had something to do with promulgating, preaching, and accepting the book, in a historical sense. However, that doesn’t make the book canonical. It’s inspiration makes it canonical.

What makes it inspirational is God, but there were plenty of disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. The CC councils settled the matter. Surely you will at least concede that God guided the CC to settle these dispute according to His will alone? If not, well, that’s cool.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Indeed. And how do you know it was inspired?

That’s the real, nitty-gritty question, Augsburg.

How do you know that Hebrews was inspired? * Especially* since there is no known certainty of authorship.

It went through the same process of historical and textual scrutiny that the other books of the NT went through. Based on such research, the church eventually accepted that it is an inspired book. However, again, if the book were not inspired, if it were along the lines of, say, the Gospel of Thomas or what have you, it would not have been accepted.

 

[joe370]

Impossible to argue against, with my sola scriptura hat on…

There’s millions of JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, and Jews who would disagree with you.

Clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is, well, a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

You acknowledge Athanasius was right because Scripture is clear about the Trinity?

Again, clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

The Holy Spirit chose to reveal this Truth fully through the Church, not through the Scriptures.

 

[Augsburg1530]

There’s millions of JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, and Jews who would disagree with you.

Clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is, well, a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

You acknowledge Athanasius was right because Scripture is clear about the Trinity?

Again, clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

The Holy Spirit chose to reveal this Truth fully through the Church, not through the Scriptures.

Really? Ok, then, please show me how Scripture is tenuous in presenting the doctrine of the Trinity. Find even one Christian from Arius’ birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the Arians “could affirm every single verse of Scripture” or couldn’t be refuted from Scripture alone.

The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them (the Arians) no shame. - Alexander of Alexandria.

 

[Augsburg1530]

There’s millions of JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, and Jews who would disagree with you.

And how many of those above groups have to add additional books to, or edit current books, in order to make their case?

Clarity in Scripture regarding the Trinity is, well, a very, very tenuous position to be sure!

(quotes in direct relation to the Arian debate)

Augustine (354-430): What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but The Father and I are one (Jn. 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witness for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. See WSA, Answer to Maximinus, Part I, Vol. 18, ed. John Rotelle, O.S.A., trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.

Athanasius (297-373): Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness!, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. C. R. B. Shapland, trans., The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.19 (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1951), p. 108. Greek text: Περιττῆς τοιγαροῦν καὶ πλέον μανίας οὔσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιχειρήσεως, μηκέτι τοιαῦτά τις ἐρω τάτω, ἢ μόνον τὰ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς μανθανέτω. Αὐτάρκη γὰρ καὶ ἱκανὰ τὰ ἐν ταύταις κείμενα περὶ τούτου παραδείγματα. Ad Serapionem 1.19, PG 26:573.

 

[PRmerger]

It went through the same process of historical and textual scrutiny that the other books of the NT went through. Based on such research, the church eventually accepted that it is an inspired book. However, again, if the book were not inspired, if it were along the lines of, say, the Gospel of Thomas or what have you, it would not have been accepted.

Yes!!! :extrahappy:

So we conclude that it is only through the authority of the CC--something outside of Scripture--that we can conclude that something is theopneustos.

 

[PRmerger]

Biblically, prayer is always offered to God, and is a form of worship. All religions view prayer as an act of worship to their god(s) since they contain petitions, confession of sin, requests of intercession, etc., things which are received and answered by God, not by created things. Also, prayer is not the same thing as talking to someone face-to-face. Prayer is a humble petition to the Lord and not to a friend who’s in the same room with you or on the other end of the phone – or in heaven. Prayer is offered to God, never to any created thing. To do so is to offer worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry.

That is indeed one form of prayer–worship of the divine.

But there is nothing in Scripture–not a single word–that says that prayer has to be only worship of God. Prayer, esp. in English, involves petition. And, there’s nothing in Scripture–not a single word–that conflicts with petitioning another to lift us up before the Lord.

Having said that, however, I have no issue with the fact that the saints in heaven intercede for the Church Militant. That would be a separate issue from veneration.

What about veneration is contradictory to Scripture? Having a picture of a saint in your home is contradictory to Scripture? Naming you baby after a saint is contradictory to Scripture? Having a church named after a saint is contradictory to Scripture?

 

[Augsburg1530]

Yes!!! :extrahappy:

So we conclude that it is only through the authority of the CC--something outside of Scripture--that we can conclude that something is theopneustos.

It doesn’t have to do with their authority. You are basing your conclusion on a charism possessed by the Church which I do not claim they have. Since the canon of the NT was based largely on Athanasius’ list, presented in his festal letter, you’d have to argue that it was based on some charism of infallibility possessed by Athanasius, which I don’t think is an argument you’d make! The problem with the discussion, is the Roman Catholic argument on this is far too simplistic. I would argue that God used historical development so that the books He inspired ended up in the canon.