Sola Scriptura Answer to a Modern Question

[1sicht]

And the above verse was written by St. Paul in defense or advocating sola scriptura?

It’s pretty clear that he is basing himself in the written word, is it not? The written word sets the parameters; it’s the touchstone, the litmus test. (Personally, since RC’s love to misunderstand “sola scriptura,” I prefer “prima scriptura.” No serious Biblical Protestant would contest that “iron sharpens iron.”)

 

[Steven_John]

As you wait for an answer to your sincere question may I ask you how you believe the Bible that we have today came to be?

Of course you can but i am of the lowest in believers so maybe of no use but for being chastised by other posters.

I approach the bible as a compilation of writings of people past who were inspired to leave their experience for us to learn from.

Its compilation was intended to make it easer for us to know G-d and dispel other writings,they saw as mis information.

I would say as i read it there are parts i have some unexplainable belief in but cant really put my finger on why, others i can see are from my upbringing and others from my own experience. Some of it i would just explain as simple logic.

i dont think for me it is easy to try put into words a complex question and hoped to learn something from your answer that would maybe help me better define where i am at.

Given the scope of the question, i understand you don’t have an answer to share, i am very humbled you sought from me, i am unworthy of such, so please understand i am not a messenger (pbut) many have been sent for us.

Blessings to you and yours

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This is from the Postings Of Radical.

I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).
The aspect of “full message” calls into consideration the question of whether scripture is materially and/or formally sufficient.
The “free from any error” aspect together with the “sola” aspect of the answer calls into question whether tradition contains any error.
The “at this time” aspect recognizes that what has provided by God has changed over time. In 30 AD the answer to the question would have been “in Jesus’s teaching”. In 60 AD the answer to the question would have been “in the inspired teachings, both oral and recorded, of the apsotles and the Jewish scriptures”. The fact that the correct answer in 30 or 60 AD is not “sola scriptura” does not mean that the correct answer could not be sola scriptura in 1520 AD as things changed in the interim.

Hello all;

I’m not entirely convinced that the original question posited by “Radical” is just a modern one. I think people have been looking for the fullness of God’s revelation since shortly after Adam. But I do think that God used a variety of prophets and writers to gradually reveal all that He wished to reveal, with the ultimate revelation being Jesus Christ. While the Apostles and their spiritual progeny strove to write down much of what Christ taught, it is readily evident that what they did not do was was write a catechism of the Christian faith. Instead, the Church pulled together the various inspired writings of the new testament authors and compiled them together with the texts of the Hebrew scriptures to create a library of sacred texts which both Protestants and Catholics accept as inspired and without error. That is as far as it goes. They are in some places easy to understand, and in others, open to different interpretation. The fact that the bible’s passages can be read and understood differently by different people quite clearly disproves the notion that the bible alone is sufficient for teaching revealed truth. What does seem necessary is that one must read these passages as those who lived the Christian life at the beginning understood them. And that pulls into the picture the concept of “Sacred Tradition.” Whether that tradition is 20 years old, or 2,000 years old - it is still part of the process of correctly finding revealed truth in Scripture. So, I think the answer to the original question must be that - just as it has been since the Word became flesh and dwelt among us - the fullness of the Truth that God revealed to us can be found in Scripture, read in context with the Tradition of the faithfull. That was true in 50 A.D., and it remains true today.

Peace,
Robert

 

[fred_conty]

Radical said, “I see people such as Hus, Luther, Francis, Calvin and Zwingli and their supporters and followers as shaping doctrine…”

One doctrine they shaped was “This is my Body.”
One shaped it as a symbol while the other shaped it as real.

There were shaping and sizing to other doctrines as well.

And where does all this “shaping” lead?
To more “shaping”?
And where will it end, or will it end?
Yes it does end…in more and more churches.

 

[fred_conty]

Radical said, " I would say that I am trying to determine which denomination possesses the fullest partial knowledge. (1 Cor 13:9)

The verse quoted is not talking about knowledge we have now, but the knowledge of
seeing God face to face in heaven.

As for determining which church has the best knowledge now, it is the one who
is described as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”

One… body of teaching
Holiness .shown by those former miracle workers, the saints (Francis, Benedict, etc.).
…Real presence of Jesus Christ.
Catholic…because it is the same church world wide and found everywhere.
Apostolic coming from the first apostles and continuing in their appointed successors.

It shows no partiality to any person, while it’s doors are open to all everywhere.

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course you can but i am of the lowest in believers so maybe of no use but for being chastised by other posters.

I approach the bible as a compilation of writings of people past who were inspired to leave their experience for us to learn from.

Its compilation was intended to make it easer for us to know G-d and dispel other writings,they saw as mis information.

I would say as i read it there are parts i have some unexplainable belief in but cant really put my finger on why, others i can see are from my upbringing and others from my own experience. Some of it i would just explain as simple logic.

i dont think for me it is easy to try put into words a complex question and hoped to learn something from your answer that would maybe help me better define where i am at.

Given the scope of the question, i understand you don’t have an answer to share, i am very humbled you sought from me, i am unworthy of such, so please understand i am not a messenger (pbut) many have been sent for us.

Blessings to you and yours

I understand that you are not a bloody galah. I was not brought up behind the black stump.

I asked a question. You chose to give me lots of words that do not answer the question. Your choice.

You are on your way. Paul described himself as the least of the Apostles, the least of the saints and later in life the greatest of sinners.

Think I will go make me some goanna burritos.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

“Subsides”?!? Really? Then, there isn’t any left.

:twocents: The oral “tradition” and the written tradition said the same thing: they weren’t “half and half.” Each of them was a mirror image of the other, one “in the air/ear,” the other on papyrus.

Greetings 1Sicht and to those posting and or reading this thread,

Subsides??? What was I thinking?

My appreciation in pointing out my word choice error. The quote should have read,

I would say that the fullness of Truth -]subsides/-] subsists in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

My apologies for using the wrong word. I could have sworn that post said subsists, much to my horror did I see that I wronte subsides.

I am aware of the unity between the Oral and Written Tradition. There is a unity between those two and the Magisterial Teaching of the Cathlic Church as well.

It is a shame that I cannot alter nor edit the OP that I had made.

Thank you.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[fred_conty]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
And the above verse was written by St. Paul in defense or advocating sola scriptura?

To which sicht responded:
It’s pretty clear that he is basing himself in the written word, is it not? The written word sets the parameters; it’s the touchstone, the litmus test. (Personally, since RC’s love to misunderstand “sola scriptura,” I prefer “prima scriptura.” No serious Biblical Protestant would contest that “iron sharpens iron.”)

To which I respond:

I have the Protestant Bible NIV which says:

"…so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,
“Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you shall not take
pride in one man over against another. For who makes you
different from anyone else? What do you have that you do not
receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boost as though
you did not? (I COR. 6;4-7)

Notice the context of the whole passage is referring to pride.
The person is elevating themselves above others. The
writting that is referred to is some writting, maybe the bible,
and maybe not, or maybe the writting is referring to some
private letter of message sent to this person. This writting
probably has some admonition to humility or warning of
pride. It could be referring to some part of the bible about
this very subject known to this man.

In any case, it says writting without referring specifically to
the bible or any other specific writting. Reading it in the
context of the whole passage, it has something to do with
correcting the man’s pride and not with “only the bible”.

And finally it says “beyond” not “only”.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s pretty clear that he is basing himself in the written word, is it not? The written word sets the parameters; it’s the touchstone, the litmus test. (Personally, since RC’s love to misunderstand “sola scriptura,” I prefer “prima scriptura.” No serious Biblical Protestant would contest that “iron sharpens iron.”)

WRONG! You are clearly taking that verse out of its proper context. You have to place the entire verse in its entirety with the entire chapter,book and Bible. You cannot simply slice and dice a verse and say: See…see, it is proves this or that. That my friend is called eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. Basically one injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s pretty clear that he is basing himself in the written word, is it not? The written word sets the parameters; it’s the touchstone, the litmus test. (Personally, since RC’s love to misunderstand “sola scriptura,” I prefer “prima scriptura.” No serious Biblical Protestant would contest that “iron sharpens iron.”)

I believe that you are sincere in your understanding of this passage. There is a possibility that you are sincerely wrong.

Just so you know that there may be other than what you believe to be true, consider the following.

1Cor4:16 the perfect passive verb “has been written” is controversial. There are scholars that suggest that this is a marginal note of a scribe. There is at least one Protestant that refused to translate the phrase. J.B. Moffatt, Moffatt, James B. The New Testament, A New Translation (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, London 1935 ed)

There are at least 8 plausible ways to interpret the passage. You may want to consider that you are reading a translation and that translation is not infallible or inerrant and your evaluation is fallible.

If you get hold of the Moffatt bible you can check this out and see that a Protestant Scholar with no intention of supporting a Catholic position honestly cannot agree with you.

 

[JonNC]

Radical said, "I mistrust anyone or anything that claims to possess a “monopoly” with respect to God, fullness of truth etc. "

Let’s do the math.

Let’s think about that word “monopoly”.
Now think about the word “God”.
Look alike?
Would His truth be any different?

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

1 God
3,000 churches
3,000 truths
Does that work?

The problem with this, Fred, is I wouldn’t accept the second part as valid, since I don’t view Lutheranism as part of the 3,000 churches you mention, because this implies that there once was a singular Protestant Church.

and then there is the question of the Orthodox. Where do they fit into your equation?

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

The problem with this, Fred, is I wouldn’t accept the second part as valid, since I don’t view Lutheranism as part of the 3,000 churches you mention, because this implies that there once was a singular Protestant Church.

and then there is the question of the Orthodox. Where do they fit into your equation?

Jon

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

revised

1 Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now.

That works.

 

[CopticChristian]

The problem with this, Fred, is I wouldn’t accept the second part as valid, since I don’t view Lutheranism as part of the 3,000 churches you mention, because this implies that there once was a singular Protestant Church.

and then there is the question of the Orthodox. Where do they fit into your equation?

Jon

1 God
3,000 churches
3,000 truths
Does that work?

revised

3,000 Churches that emananted from Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican communities at inception as there was no singular Protestant Church denominating in time to many. The Anabaptists and Baptists do not see themselves as part of this inception although in fact they are.

That works.

 

[JonNC]

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

revised

1 Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now.

That works.

And that’s great that you’re talking. We - your communion and mine - are talking, too.

Jon

 

[CopticChristian]

And that’s great that you’re talking. We - your communion and mine - are talking, too.

Jon

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

revised

1 Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now.

New Revision.

1 Catholic Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now with a common uniting Eucharist.

1 God
3,000 churches
3,000 truths

Many communities that were progenitors of the 3,000 churches have begun dialogue including, Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed. The dialogue has concerned Justification, Baptism, evangelization, Mary and an attempt at common understanding of the central focus of worship the Eucharist.

Does that work?

 

[JonNC]

1 God
1 truth
1 catholic church.
That works!.

revised

1 Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now.

New Revision.

1 Catholic Catholic Church, East/West. The Eastern Church Orthodox Sister that does not talk much over the years to the Catholic Church East/West. They are talking now with a common uniting Eucharist.

1 God
3,000 churches
3,000 truths

Many communities that were progenitors of the 3,000 churches have begun dialogue including, Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed. The dialogue has concerned Justification, Baptism, evangelization, Mary and an attempt at common understanding of the central focus of worship the Eucharist.

Does that work?

LOL. Ok, let’s pray we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, narrow it down to 1 Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is from the Postings Of Radical.

This is from the Postings Of Radical.

Quote:
I would suggest that sola scriptura is an answer to a rather modern question. That question could be worded as: “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” The answer to that question would not always have been the same. The answer in 30 AD is different from the answer in 60 AD and both of those answers could be different from the answer in 1520 AD (or in 2008 AD, for that matter).

What sayest thou?

Taking into consideration here; that no historical record mentions Jesus ever leaving us any thing He wrote, except on dirt and even this recorded incident does not reveal what Jesus wrote on the ground?

Sola Scriptura has no answer to any modern question, because it is a modern man made doctrine that has no divine qualities that support such a man made notion. The proof is in the Sola Scriptura interpretations which derive from this man made doctrine that never has any back bone, because when it got invented the interpretation of Sola Scriptura has changed and continues to change from its founders interpretation of Sola Scriptura that lead these men to invent other Sola man made theories to support Sola Scriptura from Sola Gratia, Sola Fide to mention a few.

The answer to the question “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” Has never changed these past 2000 years since the resurrection in the True revelation of Jesus true presence in his body the Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura denies what Jesus came to do; To do the Will of God, suffer, die and resurrect from the dead in order to bring salvation to humanity, in the “Word became flesh”. The Word did not remain letters on a page, the Word of God did not remain written on stone, The Word of God became flesh, was crucified buried and rose from the dead. There never was and there will never be a Sola Scriptura that can bring salvation to humanity. Because we now have the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity revealed in his Eucharist and living in His body the Catholic Church.

Jesus did not reveal God to humanity from His teachings, rebukes and moral instructions of Love of God and Love of neighbor which became written, Jesus came to reveal the True presence of God among us, not in a “Sola Scriptura” with multiple definitions denominating from it. Jesus sacrificed His life once and for all, so that God now lives in the hearts and minds of men, not on a “Sola Scriptura” or Letters on a page. This has never changed since the resurrection when Jesus body, blood soul and divinity are truly present in His Eucharist, when “God now dwells with the human race”. God does not dwell with the human race from “Sola Scriptura” words on a page.

Sola Scriptura’s try and create a symbolic god from letters on a page, when the Word of God lives resurrected with a real and eternal (resurrected) body, blood, soul and divinity made present in the Catholic Church unchanged these since the resurrection.

The written Word of God, the Apostolic Sacred Traditions attest to this Christian living and Jesus never left his Apostles and their Valid Apostolic successors who remain among us in the Popes, Bishops and Patriarchs. These hold the keys to bind and loose on earth long before the Old and New Testament was ever canonized by the Catholic Church.

In fact it took the Catholic Apostolic Successors and the Popes with the Holy Spirit living in the body of Christ to authenticate and canonize the bible books which protestants raise and hold to a “Sola Scritura” higher than the authority established by Jesus Himself to the Catholic Church to bind and loose on earth, while Jesus will bind and loose in heaven.

How can the newly invented sola scriptura’s interpretations supersede the True presence of Jesus resurrected body, blood soul and divinity revealed in the Eucharist, taught in the Sacred Scriptures, practiced in the Catholic Church unchanged since the resurrection.

Holding to written teachings “Sola Scriptura” in the scriptures and inventing new interpretations only these past 500 years, in order to define them outside what God has revealed in the Son of God, does not answer the question “Where, at this time, is the full message from God (with regards to salvation) to be found in a form free from any error?” Only the True presence of Jesus possesses the full message from God with regards to salvation once and for “ALL”.

peace be with you

 

[stevekehl]

Try to hold that thought and believe it when Paul says that the Gentiles who have not Circumcision are a law unto themselves.

You would conclude that the only people that had a lifestyle were those that had the law of moses?

Paul says that the Uncircumcised that had not the law did what the law required and were circumcised of the heart. If Circumcision is the second step into the covenant, the first being be fruitful and multiply then those outside the covenant lived as if they had the law, becase according to Paul they were circumcised of the heart and lived as if they had the law…

Do you still hold to your thought?

I still hold that thought because Paul didn’t say they were a law unto themselves. He said when Gentiles naturally do what God commands they are a law unto themselves.
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Thus Paul is talking about those who have not heard of God and the Law before Christ and those who have not heard of Christ after His coming. So, if someone lives in a Muslim nation, where preaching Christ is outlawed, lives ther whole life and dies without hearing the Gospel, will God send them to hell because they didn’t accept Christ as their Savior? I don’t think so. I believe God will judge them based on whether they worshipped God, were they honest, forgiving, patient, loving, and so on. The passage above and the context don’t apply to those who have heard the message.
Romans 2:12a Those people who don’t know about God’s Law will still be punished for what they do wrong.
As for the circumcision of the heart, Paul is saying that outward signs or faith, like crossing yourself, pennance, or wearing saints medallions, don’t mean anything, it is the level of commitment to Christ that is important.

So my point still stands. If tradition is inerrant and based on Christ’s teachings why do we need Scripture? I believe as errors crept into doctrine that God moved the Church to compile the New Testament and the Scriptures contained are exactly what God intended us to have.

 

[stevekehl]

Asking in a genuine way, can you state why or how you came to believe this or is it of the mysterious.
I guess its the latter as there are some things i believe but cant explicitly state a source.
Blessing to you and yours

I believe God controls all things, all according to His plan. If God has a plan, He must have a way to communicate this plan to us. He sent the prophets in the OT times and Jesus to deliver the Gospel to the world. So if God has a message, a plan, and is in control, it only follows that inspiring the compilation of a book to communicate with us came exactly when He wanted it to.:yup:

 

[Steven_John]

I believe God controls all things, all according to His plan. If God has a plan, He must have a way to communicate this plan to us. He sent the prophets in the OT times and Jesus to deliver the Gospel to the world. So if God has a message, a plan, and is in control, it only follows that inspiring the compilation of a book to communicate with us came exactly when He wanted it to.:yup:

Bless you & yours i thank G-d for your sharing with me