Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[JonathanEdwards]

Who is “we”?

Christians who believe the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

pqyire[Do you really think that your team identified by “we” understands what Jesus actually taught, or simply what your team “we” wants to believe?
[/quote]

Yes, I believe we have demonstrated that we understand what Jesus taught.

How many churches did Christ build, and who was appointed as rock of the Church?

One church and Christ is the rock.

 

[VWcrazy]

Still no proof.

 

[MDK]

Christians who believe the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Did it ever occur to you that you may be a little confused? Do you claim to speak on behalf of all Christians who believe in sola scriptura? First indication of confusion and presumptiveness is that is that sola scriptura is not believed by many of them the way you have presented it here. Do you understand what the word “sola” means? Secondly, it’s not scriptural. There is also a disconnect between what you profess and what Christ taught and did… as evidenced below:

Yes, I believe we have demonstrated that we understand what Jesus taught.

One church and Christ is the rock.

What you think you’ve done, and what reality are may be quite far apart.

One Church, yes. However, you didn’t answer my question, which was who is the rock of the Church as appointed by Christ?

Christ is the ultimate Rock, but didn’t appoint Himself as rock of the Church. The only way to believe that Christ is the rock of the Church as described in Matthew 16, is to do violence to the wording of Christ. If you believe erroneously that Christ said He is the rock of the Church in Matthew 16, then you have indeed done violence to the Words and teaching of Christ.

 

[MDK]

Actually, each of the passages I’ve cited show sola scriptura.

I notice you never answered my question:

When Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did Jesus appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by stating “the Catholic church has declared…”?

Excuse me, but this is a bit of an uneducated question in that Christ had not even established the Church yet. Secondly, even if He had, it would not have mattered. Third, through what entity were the NT Sacred Scriptures given to the world, and which assembled the inspired Scriptures into the Bible? This same entity is Christ’s Church which is the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[MDK]

Matthew 28:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing non-infants in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 writing the new testament, and teaching them from Scriptures alone to interpret, as they wish, all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you, and any version of a church you wish to invent, always, to the close of the age."

The rest of the detail is included in Matthew, Chapter 29, including the instructions to make the literal into the symbolic, the abrogation of the Church heirarchy, and the disolution of the ministerial priesthood.

Oh yeah, and to avoid anything in the future that is labeled Catholic

Pretty good satire. Sadly though, many confused separated brethren would actually recognize that as a proper restatement of their doctrine.

 

[MrS]

Actually, each of the passages I’ve cited show sola scriptura.

I notice you never answered my question:

When Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did Jesus appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by stating “the Catholic church has declared…”?

before the new testament was canonized, St Paul often said or implied “…it is written…” or “…as it is written…”

Does this prove only the authority of the OT?

If no, what proves the authority of the NT to validly quote the OT?

If yes, then the NT is not authoritative… and thus neither are St. Paul’s words.

 

[MDK]

That sounds reasonable. What could be wrong with that?

The quote you’re referring to is:
“Sola scriptura is the doctrine that says that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.”

First, let me please start by writing that there could be elements wrong with that quote.

First, how do we know the proper meaning or teachings of Scriptures? There is no mention of a proper interpretation, or authoritative teaching body. In the absence of an authoritative teaching Church, people are left to interpret as they will. The US didn’t even do that with the Constitution, as there is an authoritative interpreting court. Unlike the court man established, God’s interpretive body is infallible due to His protection.

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and not the Bible. The Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. However, the Church built by Christ is the infallible teacher of God’s word.

What is God’s word? Jesus taught verbally and did not write anything down Himself. The Apostles taught by word of mouth. Some of this was written down into written Tradition. There is no difference between God’s spoken Word, and His Written Word. Oral Tradition helps us to understand Written Tradition.

Next thing is that the definition provided by this person is not a widely accepted version of Sola Scriptura. In fact, it doesn’t make any sense, just look at what the word “sola” means. It means “only” so we have the term “only Scripture.”

The quote implies that all comes from written Scripture, as the only authority. That’s not true. The Church existed and taught for years orally before any of the NT Scripture was written, and long before it was finished. Then taught much longer until the Church defined what was to go into the Bible. The Church came before written Tradition (Scriptures). If one misinterprets the written word of God, then how is a misinterpretation supposed to be authoritative? It is not, but sadly many believe in their own false interpretations of God’s Word because they read it and have interpreted as they see fit, but not as God intended.

There is no disagreement between Catholic Doctrine, Dogma and Scriptures. However, the Bible doesn’t teach its own truths. The Church teaches the truth of God’s Word written in Scriptures. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Nowhere in Godly Oral or Written Traditions is it found that the Bible or Scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[MrS]

Yeah, that’s kind of what I always wonder when they make the anti-sola scriptura argument.

On the one hand, they say that we don’t need the authority of scripture but then they turn around and say that Catholicism must be true because it’s doctrines are based on scripture.

Now I understand you.

You are just peeved because you wrongly think that the Catholic Church does not need the authority of the Scriptures. That is just plain Goofy.

The same Church, through which the Holy Spirit gave the world the written Scriptures in the form of the Bible, has always held our book in high esteem.

1st Witness: The Magisterium, the Apostles and the teaching body of the Church were first taught Tradition from Jesus Himself.

2nd Witness: Jesus Himself, founded only one Church with Peter given the authority to “…feed My sheep, tend My flock…”

3rd Witness: Over time, much of the Tradition was written down. Some of it correctly, some not. So all these writtings were studied, discussed, argued about and then eventually canonized into the Bible of the Catholic Church.

Only an “outsider” could not care to understand. All three witnesses continue to agree on the Doctrines of Truth. Catholics do not need “scripture alone”. We have all three witnesses… and all Christians and non-Christians alike are invited to come to the fullness of the faith, found only in the Catholic Church.

.

 

[MrS]

There is no disagreement between Catholic Doctrine, Dogma and Scriptures. However, the Bible doesn’t teach its own truths. The Church teaches the truth of God’s Word written in Scriptures. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Nowhere in Godly Oral or Written Traditions is it found that the Bible or Scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth.

.

 

[JonathanEdwards]

Now I understand you.

You are just peeved because you wrongly think that the Catholic Church does not need the authority of the Scriptures. That is just plain Goofy.

Ad hom after ad hom after ad hom.

That’s all you guys have.

 

[MDK]

Ad hom after ad hom after ad hom.

That’s all you guys have.

Yes, you say that, and yet still can’t come up with a valid defense of your position. Why would that be?

If you came here seeking truth, you would simply thank us by now. As it is, you seem not so much to be interested in truth, as in promoting your version of what you want to believe, which has been shown to be at variance with the truth. If you can provide some truth, then we’d appreciate it. If you’re going to simply portray what you want as though it were truth, well then, sorry… not buying that here. To be Catholic is to seek the Truth, accept it, and promote it.

The Catholic Church delivers God’s mail. Others want to edit His mail using their own fallible judgment to suit their own ideas.

 

[With_Questions]

The quote you’re referring to is:
“Sola scriptura is the doctrine that says that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.”

First, let me please start by writing that there could be elements wrong with that quote.

OK,

But you are the ones who are saying Sola Scriptura is definitely false. There is a difference then between “could be” and “are definitely”.

First, how do we know the proper meaning or teachings of Scriptures?

That’s a good question!

It does seem that there are a number of issues in Christianity that you can build a case either way in Scripture.

However, that does not really address the quote. The quote says nothing about the process in the case Scripture can not conclusively settle a certain issue. It only states what Scripture claims of itself in 1 Timothy 3:16 and it is the authority by which you judge tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice. The quote does not guarantee that all questions pertaining to the above can be definitively resolved from Scripture.

There is no mention of a proper interpretation, or authoritative teaching body. In the absence of an authoritative teaching Church, people are left to interpret as they will. The US didn’t even do that with the Constitution, as there is an authoritative interpreting court. Unlike the court man established, God’s interpretive body is infallible due to His protection.
The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and not the Bible. The Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. However, the Church built by Christ is the infallible teacher of God’s word.

What is God’s word? Jesus taught verbally and did not write anything down Himself. The Apostles taught by word of mouth. Some of this was written down into written Tradition. There is no difference between God’s spoken Word, and His Written Word. Oral Tradition helps us to understand Written Tradition.

It sounds to me like you are saying that this definition is false because the Church built by Christ (which you say is the Catholic denomination) is the infallible teacher of God’s word.

I would observe that there is a difference between saying that
(1) Sola Scriptura (the above definition) is false because the Church Built by Christ (your denomination) is the infallible teacher of God’s word and (2) Sola Scriptura is false because of (any other reason).

If (1) is your reason, then it seems to me that what you are saying is that Sola Scriptura is false because Catholicism is true. If that is the case the logic “Sola Scriptura is false because it isn’t in the Bible” is a fallacy.

Next thing is that the definition provided by this person is not a widely accepted version of Sola Scriptura. In fact, it doesn’t make any sense, just look at what the word “sola” means. It means “only” so we have the term “only Scripture.”

Well the term “Sola Scriptura” is meaningless in itself because it does not have a verb. So instead of debating a slogan that has no verb and therefore no meaning, I think it prudent to start with a definition.

Whether this definition is a widely accepted definition of Sola Scriptura is another issue. If someone else wants to come to this thread with another definition I suppose they are welcome to. Whether I agree with that definition is another issue.

The quote implies that all comes from written Scripture, as the only authority. That’s not true.

It seems to me that the statement

“Sola scriptura is the doctrine that says that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, and is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.”

and the statement

all comes from written Scripture, as the only authority.

are substantially different statements.

The Church existed and taught for years orally before any of the NT Scripture was written, and long before it was finished. Then taught much longer until the Church defined what was to go into the Bible. The Church came before written Tradition (Scriptures). If one misinterprets the written word of God, then how is a misinterpretation supposed to be authoritative? It is not, but sadly many believe in their own false interpretations of God’s Word because they read it and have interpreted as they see fit, but not as God intended.

There is no disagreement between Catholic Doctrine, Dogma and Scriptures. However, the Bible doesn’t teach its own truths. The Church teaches the truth of God’s Word written in Scriptures. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Nowhere in Godly Oral or Written Traditions is it found that the Bible or Scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth.

Again, if your argument is “Sola Scriptura” (this definition) is false because Catholicism is true, that is a separate argument. I actally agree that (unless I misunderstand both) if Catholicism is true then Sola Scriptura is false. However, in this case the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate that Catholicism is true. You just can’t get by with smarky statements like I read in this thread such as Sola Scriptura is false because it is not in the Bible.

 

[MDK]

OK,

But you are the ones who are saying Sola Scriptura is definitely false. There is a difference then between “could be” and “are definitely”.

That’s a good question!

It does seem that there are a number of issues in Christianity that you can build a case either way in Scripture.

However, that does not really address the quote. The quote says nothing about the process in the case Scripture can not conclusively settle a certain issue. It only states what Scripture claims of itself in 1 Timothy 3:16 and it is the authority by which you judge tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice. The quote does not guarantee that all questions pertaining to the above can be definitively resolved from Scripture.

It sounds to me like you are saying that this definition is false because the Church built by Christ (which you say is the Catholic denomination) is the infallible teacher of God’s word.

I would observe that there is a difference between saying that
(1) Sola Scriptura (the above definition) is false because the Church Built by Christ (your denomination) is the infallible teacher of God’s word and (2) Sola Scriptura is false because of (any other reason).

If (1) is your reason, then it seems to me that what you are saying is that Sola Scriptura is false because Catholicism is true. If that is the case the logic “Sola Scriptura is false because it isn’t in the Bible” is a fallacy.

Well the term “Sola Scriptura” is meaningless in itself because it does not have a verb. So instead of debating a slogan that has no verb and therefore no meaning, I think it prudent to start with a definition.

Whether this definition is a widely accepted definition of Sola Scriptura is another issue. If someone else wants to come to this thread with another definition I suppose they are welcome to. Whether I agree with that definition is another issue.

It seems to me that the statement

and the statement

are substantially different statements.

Again, if your argument is “Sola Scriptura” (this definition) is false because Catholicism is true, that is a separate argument. I actally agree that (unless I misunderstand both) if Catholicism is true then Sola Scriptura is false. However, in this case the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate that Catholicism is true. You just can’t get by with smarky statements like I read in this thread such as Sola Scriptura is false because it is not in the Bible.

Hard to believe you didn’t understand the use of the phrase “First, let me please start by writing that there could be elements wrong with that quote” which was to introduce the possibility. Then I showed you how more than just a possibility, it was wrong. If you really don’t understand what was done, let me please be more clear. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.

I’ll give you some help to understand what was meant. I said this person’s definition of “sola scriptura” is his own, tweaked version, and does not even follow the interpretation of the Latin words, nor how this phrase first came about and is used. However, even this definition presented is erroneous. Sola Scriptura is not accurate not only because it is not Biblical, but because it directly conflicts with the written Tradition. Furthermore, the Scriptures don’t teach their own truth. Christ set up the Church to make sure His Word would be taught accurately, and not that just anyone would come along and misinterpret and teach falsely. So, sola scriptura naturally depends on one’s interpretation, and a rejection of the Christ established Church’s authority to teach these truths. One cannot just quote Scripture and claim as authoritative a meaning that was not intended by God. So, the the claim of the Bible as the prime authority conflicts with the Bible itself.

Among other problems with your post is that you badly misinterpret by saying it “only states what Scripture claims of itself in 1 Timothy 3:16 and it is the authority by which you judge tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice.” I believe you actually meant 2 Tim 3:16, which is “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” which actually means “every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.” In other words, yes it is profitable as the Catholic Church teaches, and is materially sufficient, but never says nor teaches that Scripture is formally sufficient.

A direct translation of Sola Scriptura from Latin provides “only Scripture”, and it does have a meaning that people know when the phrase is used. It wasn’t used until the 1500’s, and then to reject the authority of the pope (established by Christ). The early Church fathers knew truth and did not use something like this.

If you go to 1 Tim 3:15 and have the correct teaching of the Church as pillar and ground of truth, you have “the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.” The Catholic Church is true, because it was built by Christ, and a deeper discussion of this is for a different thread. If you want to seek truth, the burden is on you, because you haven’t shown much yet. If you don’t accept the truth, then not much else we can do for you.

Please give it another shot at understanding what was actually said, instead of what you tried to make it say. People who have no problem twisting God’s word, will do this in other places as well.

 

[With_Questions]

Hard to believe you didn’t understand the use of the phrase “First, let me please start by writing that there could be elements wrong with that quote” which was to introduce the possibility. Then I showed you how more than just a possibility, it was wrong. If you really don’t understand what was done, let me please be more clear. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.

OK. Since you are the one who is making the assertion that it is definitely false, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is false.

I’ll give you some help to understand what was meant. I said this person’s definition of “sola scriptura” is his own, tweaked version, and does not even follow the interpretation of the Latin words, nor how this phrase first came about and is used.

OK. Then you supply your definition of “Sola Scriptura” and tell me who subscribes to this definition. However if nobody subscribes to this definition, you have constructed a strawman.

I stand by the statement that “Sola Scriptura” is meaningless in itself because the phrase lacks a definition. Mr JonathanEdwards at least stood up and supplied a definition. His definition seems reasonable to me.

However, even this definition presented is erroneous. Sola Scriptura is not accurate not only because it is not Biblical, but because it directly conflicts with the written Tradition.
Furthermore, the Scriptures don’t teach their own truth. Christ set up the Church to make sure His Word would be taught accurately, and not that just anyone would come along and misinterpret and teach falsely. So, sola scriptura naturally depends on one’s interpretation, and a rejection of the Christ established Church’s authority to teach these truths. One cannot just quote Scripture and claim as authoritative a meaning that was not intended by God. So, the the claim of the Bible as the prime authority conflicts with the Bible itself.

Among other problems with your post is that you badly misinterpret by saying it “only states what Scripture claims of itself in 1 Timothy 3:16 and it is the authority by which you judge tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice.” I believe you actually meant 2 Tim 3:16, which is “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” which actually means “every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.” In other words, yes it is profitable as the Catholic Church teaches, and is materially sufficient, but never says nor teaches that Scripture is formally sufficient.

A direct translation of Sola Scriptura from Latin provides “only Scripture”, and it does have a meaning that people know when the phrase is used. It wasn’t used until the 1500’s, and then to reject the authority of the pope (established by Christ). The early Church fathers knew truth and did not use something like this.

If you go to 1 Tim 3:15 and have the correct teaching of the Church as pillar and ground of truth, you have “the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.” The Catholic Church is true, because it was built by Christ, and a deeper discussion of this is for a different thread. If you want to seek truth, the burden is on you, because you haven’t shown much yet. If you don’t accept the truth, then not much else we can do for you.

Please give it another shot at understanding what was actually said, instead of what you tried to make it say. People who have no problem twisting God’s word, will do this in other places as well.

Sorry on confusing the Timothy Scripture. My error.

I accept the logic that unless I misunderstand both, that Sola Scriptura (this definition) and Catholicism are mutually exclusive.

However, if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura by this method, then you must prove Catholicism true with the burden of proof on you.

If you want to disprove Sola Scriptura (any definition) by a method that does not depend upon Catholicism being the one true church and every tenet of Catholicism being true, then I look foreward to reading your reasoning.

However, it seems that everything you supplied in the above paragraphs is dependent upon Catholicism being the one true church with every tenet of Catholicism being true.

If I err in this analysis, then please show me what in the argument above is not dependent upon Catholicism being true.

 

[MDK]

OK. Since you are the one who is making the assertion that it is definitely false, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is false.

I already did. You asked, I answered… if you can’t or won’t understand it, I don’t know how much more I can help you. I’ve given you explicit statements, with the idea that if you’re seeking the truth, you’ll understand and follow. If you’re not seeking the truth, you won’t see what you don’t want to know.

OK. Then you supply your definition of “Sola Scriptura” and tell me who subscribes to this definition. However if nobody subscribes to this definition, you have constructed a strawman.

I’m not going to play games. I’ve already explained it sufficiently, and besides said that even the definition given as-is is false…, and explained why. If you want more, look to what Martin Luther invented and used it for… it’s not difficult. In addition, you were basing it on a false definition of 2 Tim 3:16, which has been straightened out for you now.

I stand by the statement that “Sola Scriptura” is meaningless in itself because the phrase lacks a definition. Mr JonathanEdwards at least stood up and supplied a definition. His definition seems reasonable to me.

You’re on thin ice here. There is a literal translation and also an accepted meaning. It doesn’t stop people from hanging their own stuff to what is known.

Sorry on confusing the Timothy Scripture. My error.

I accept the logic that unless I misunderstand both, that Sola Scriptura (this definition) and Catholicism are mutually exclusive.

However, if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura by this method, then you must prove Catholicism true with the burden of proof on you.

If you want to disprove Sola Scriptura (any definition) by a method that does not depend upon Catholicism being the one true church and every tenet of Catholicism being true, then I look foreward to reading your reasoning.

However, it seems that everything you supplied in the above paragraphs is dependent upon Catholicism being the one true church with every tenet of Catholicism being true.

If I err in this analysis, then please show me what in the argument above is not dependent upon Catholicism being true.

Please just reread what I wrote, earnestly trying to understand what it says and doesn’t say. It is enough to answer your question. I don’t want to go round and round answering the same thing over and over again because it doesn’t answer a question that you may have wanted answered, but didn’t actually ask. If you want to ask other questions, please do so formally, rather than incorporating them into one that has already been answered.

 

[With_Questions]

I already did. You asked, I answered… if you can’t or won’t understand it, I don’t know how much more I can help you. I’ve given you explicit statements, with the idea that if you’re seeking the truth, you’ll understand and follow. If you’re not seeking the truth, you won’t see what you don’t want to know.

I think I will cut out of this part of the thread for now.

I find statements like"If you are seeking the truth you will understand what I am saying and agree with it" to be very condescending, offensive and not appropriate of a response. I think I have conducted myself appropriately in this thread such that this condescending response is not justified. I suspect you made such a response because you can not supply a serious answer to my questions.

 

[MDK]

I think I will cut out of this part of the thread for now.

I find statements like"If you are seeking the truth you will understand what I am saying and agree with it" to be very condescending, offensive and not appropriate of a response. I think I have conducted myself appropriately in this thread such that this condescending response is not justified. I suspect you made such a response because you can not supply a serious answer to my questions.

You suspect wrong, and what I said is a true statement, not intended to be personal. I see no evidence that you are actually seeking the truth. When I see something that is true, I examine it thoroughly on my own. I don’t see this from you, but more like defensiveness and shifting of the issue.

That you find the statement you created "“If you are seeking the truth you will understand what I am saying and agree with it” to be condescending is unfortunate. However, you brought it on yourself, as I didn’t write that.

In other words, you can’t provide proof that what you claim is actually supported, so you have shifted to a much larger issues of proving Catholicism or the Church is true, which I can defend, but needs a different thread. If you want to prove that you are honestly seeking truth, and actually can support what you claim instead of dodging it and shifting the issue, here is your chance, with an easy and explicit basic definition of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura means the Bible alone is the rule of faith and ultimate authority. When one makes this claim, then one explicitly teaches that the Bible is indeed the authority from which all things are judged. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then shouldn’t the Bible as the ultimate authority teach this most important teaching of “Bible alone” is the rule of faith and ultimate authority? If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is not included in Scripture, then where does the Bible as ultimate authority come from? You would then, by your own definition have a lesser authority bestowing the title of ultimate authority by making the claim that the ultimate authority is Scripture. Can a lesser authority create or give a greater authority to something else? It doesn’t really work, does it?

You are the one who backed the claim that Sola Scriptura was reasonable. Do you claim that “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is taught in the Bible? If so where is it taught?

All you have to do is to show where the Scriptures teach that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority and sole rule of faith from which all other things are judged.

If not, then do you admit that you can’t prove the Bible alone is the authority from Scriptures?

If you can’t do this, then you have lost the debate by failing to support your original claim, which I say is not true. It is not true because it is not the way God set things up for authority. Evidence is that it’s not in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures teach something else is the higher authority.

 

[With_Questions]

Against my better judgement.

You suspect wrong, and what I said is a true statement, not intended to be personal. I see no evidence that you are actually seeking the truth. When I see something that is true, I examine it thoroughly on my own. I don’t see this from you, but more like defensiveness and shifting of the issue.

You don’t know me from Adam.

As far as you are concerned, I might be a troll from Southern North Dakota King James fundamentalist Baptist who believes all Catholics go straight to the pits of hell. I might also be sincerely trying to educate myself on Christianity and what various groups believe.

Fortunately, I am not accountable to you and could care less what you think of me.

In other words, you can’t provide proof that what you claim is actually supported, so you have shifted to a much larger issues of proving Catholicism or the Church is true, which I can defend, but needs a different thread.

Actually my only claim in this thread is that a definition supplied of Sola Scriptura seems reasonable.

I guess my other observation is that I have attempted to analyze the arguments against this idea and according to my best analysis they are dependent upon Catholicism being true. If you believe my analysis is incorrect, please point out where it is incorrect instead of accusing me of shifting the thread.

If you want to prove that you are honestly seeking truth, and actually can support what you claim instead of dodging it and shifting the issue, here is your chance, with an easy and explicit basic definition of Sola Scriptura.

I have no interest in proving whether I am “honestly seeking truth” or a troll from Southern North Dakota Baptist. But since you supplied an alternative definition.

Sola Scriptura means the Bible alone is the rule of faith and ultimate authority.

OK. I will work with this definition.

When one makes this claim, then one explicitly teaches that the Bible is indeed the authority from which all things are judged. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then shouldn’t the Bible as the ultimate authority teach this most important teaching of “Bible alone” is the rule of faith and ultimate authority? If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is not included in Scripture, then where does the Bible as ultimate authority come from? You would then, by your own definition have a lesser authority bestowing the title of ultimate authority by making the claim that the ultimate authority is Scripture. Can a lesser authority create or give a greater authority to something else? It doesn’t really work, does it?

Well this definition is a somewhat different than the definition that Mr “Jonathan Edwards supplied”. To be honest I preferred the one that he supplied as opposed to this one. With this definition, I think I would come up with a few questions myself because I am not sure whether it works in all cases. Perhaps this definition need to be tweaked and clarified.

You are the one who backed the claim that Sola Scriptura was reasonable. Do you claim that “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is taught in the Bible? If so where is it taught?

All you have to do is to show where the Scriptures teach that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority and sole rule of faith from which all other things are judged.

If not, then do you admit that you can’t prove the Bible alone is the authority from Scriptures?

If you can’t do this, then you have lost the debate by failing to support your original claim, which I say is not true. It is not true because it is not the way God set things up for authority. Evidence is that it’s not in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures teach something else is the higher authority.

I claimed that the definition supplied earlier seemed reasonable. I have no reason to back off that statement. The definition you supplied is different than the earlier one supplied in this thread and in my opinion needs clarification.

BTW, I could care less what the definition is that Calvin, Luther, and whoever used. For the record the phrase “Sola Scriptura” is not in the lexicon of the church I presently attend and whether I believe if or not depends upon how it is defined.

 

[Lev23]

In other words, you can’t provide proof that what you claim is actually supported, so you have shifted to a much larger issues of proving Catholicism or the Church is true, which I can defend, but needs a different thread. If you want to prove that you are honestly seeking truth, and actually can support what you claim instead of dodging it and shifting the issue, here is your chance, with an easy and explicit basic definition of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura means the Bible alone is the rule of faith and ultimate authority. When one makes this claim, then one explicitly teaches that the Bible is indeed the authority from which all things are judged. If the Bible is the ultimate authority, then shouldn’t the Bible as the ultimate authority teach this most important teaching of “Bible alone” is the rule of faith and ultimate authority? If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is not included in Scripture, then where does the Bible as ultimate authority come from? You would then, by your own definition have a lesser authority bestowing the title of ultimate authority by making the claim that the ultimate authority is Scripture. Can a lesser authority create or give a greater authority to something else? It doesn’t really work, does it?

You are the one who backed the claim that Sola Scriptura was reasonable. Do you claim that “sola scriptura” (the Bible alone as the rule of faith and ultimate authority) is taught in the Bible? If so where is it taught?

All you have to do is to show where the Scriptures teach that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority and sole rule of faith from which all other things are judged.

If not, then do you admit that you can’t prove the Bible alone is the authority from Scriptures?

If you can’t do this, then you have lost the debate by failing to support your original claim, which I say is not true. It is not true because it is not the way God set things up for authority. Evidence is that it’s not in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures teach something else is the higher authority.

I would like to point something out. We can all agree how complex the rules where under the Law of the Mosiac Covenant. A tradition even started about “fence laws”, which were rules created by teachers to keep Israel from breaking God’s commandments.

2KINGS 22 AND 23 chronicles how scripture alone(the book of the Law) brung repentance to King Josiah’s heart and soul on how under his rule, Israel was ripe for God’s destruction. Even though King Josiah up to that point “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord”, he tore his robes when he found out how the Lord’s anger burned against all Israel(even him) because their fathers never-"kept the words of this book."

2 Kings 23:22 says what ultimately happened when King Josiah brung his nation back to God they way God commanded them **(((in writing)))-
The king gave this order to all the people: “Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this Book of the Covenant.” Not since the days of the judges who led Israel, nor throughout the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah, had any such Passover been observed. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem. **

Scripture alone had brung Israel, under King Josiah, to have one of the finest Passover observance ever, which foreshadowed our Lord Jesus Christ sacrifice for our salvation and the Lords Supper for his beloved Church!

And to echo from the writings of St. Peter, “the words of the prophets are made more certain” because throughout this event in 2 Kings 22 and 23, God himself spoke through the prophet and declared how he felt about Israels losing the book of the Law and not following the words it contained.

 

[MrS]

:banghead:

It seems to me that the question might also be… what is your definition of Scripture?

Is it the Old Testament. The New? Is it both?

The Catholic position is that Scripture referred to the Old Testament in the time of the Apostles. There was no NT, and I think we can agree on that.

The Apostles taught orally. And some Apostles, and some non-Apostles recorded some of those Truths to writing.

Regardless of what title you might choose, there was only one “group” of Christians during this time period. Some became Christians and maintained the faith. Some rejected one or more tenants of that Faith. The leaders among the former had the responsibility to settle these matters … and rejection of the decisions meant rejection of the “group”… the Church.

Over time, as the Church grew, some of these “writings” were selected to form what we now know as a Bible. The Bible was a work of the only Church, or group, in existance. It did not come from heretical groups.

Anyone who tried to change the Bible, add or subtract, alter words, or misinterpret verses were heretics if they came from within the Church.

Then came the reformation… along with its dissention, its controvery, its leaders (some well-meaning, but wrong). Those who accepted the Church’s decisions remained Catholic. Those who chose to reject were heretics if they came from within the Church.

Yes Luther was a heretic.

so…

The developement of Sola Scriptura came from those who needed to have this new “doctrine” to support their position of rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church.

With Questions, now you ask However, if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura by this method, then you must prove Catholicism true with the burden of proof on you.

Sola Scriptura does exist… it is the product of dissenters. That alone should cause one to stop and think, regardless of what “version” or “concept” or meaning is applied to a false doctrine.

Any burden of proof would have to refute clear history, and clear instructions in the Bible.

The burden of proof is not on the Catholic Church. It is what it is. Those who choose to reject it can do so. Those who choose to reject one or more of Her Doctrines, can do so. But if they wish to claim that their doctrines are true… they must also be able to do that.

First, the definitions given here, for Sola Scriptura, are not provable.
Secondly, they also deny the Teaching of the Church.

We don’t have to prove the Church is True. You have to prove it is false.

.