Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[onenow1]

Against my better judgement.

You don’t know me from Adam

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.

Quote= OneNow1: With Questions you should care where the roots of this doctrine, or any doctrines come from. Just an observation.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[With_Questions]

The burden of proof is not on the Catholic Church.

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

Just one comment before I dissect the complete post.

You are the one who is asserting that Sola Scriptura is false. My only assertion has been that one definition supplied here seems reasonable.

In debate, “burden of proof” rests upon the one who makes the assertion. Therefore it is up to you to define Sola Scriptura and prove your definition false. I say define it because the phrase itself lacks a verb and is therefore meaningless.

You may choose to prove a version of Sola Scriptura that differs from one I would prefer to defend. That is your prerogative. However, if nobody believes your definition, you are then defending a strawman version of this.

 

[Lev23]

: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.

.

You don’t have to bang your head anymore!

The Church is like the remnant of Israel in the OT under the Mosiac Covenant. Difference is the Church is under the New Covenant of Grace(not Law) and built by and on Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Without a doubt, there is a remnant of Israel in the Church that is chosen by Grace, NOT WORKS! But we know in Christ, both Jew and Gentile are one, equal.

The similarities of the remnant of Israel under the Mosiac Law and the Church of the New Covenant of Grace is that both are loyal to the Word of God and separate from those who mock and trample it.
**Jeremiah 15:16:17
When your words came, I ate them;
they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
for I bear your name,
O LORD God Almighty.

I never sat in the company of revelers,
never made merry with them;
I sat alone because your hand was on me
and you had filled me with indignation.

Revelations 3:8-10
I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.**

Undoubtedly, this is what the Holy Spirit guided those men who chose what is canonical in the NT.

Even St.Peter in his 2 epistles wrote about those in his time and those to come that will trample on what the prophets of scripture said, and what himself, an Apostle of Christ’s Church has said concerning the truth of Jesus Christ and his coming again, all foretold and proven by the scriptures.

 

[With_Questions]

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?

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.

OK. If you want to work with that definition I’m fine with it I guess. However, today the NT is Scripture. Thus my definition,

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.

I’ll work with this with one observation. They were heretics in relationship to the Church at the time. Whether all of these groups were heretic in relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ is a separate issue.

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.

Again, Luther was a heretic in relationship to the Catholic church. Whether he was a heretic in relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ is a separate issue.

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.

Again, I agree that in relationship to the Catholic Church that Sola Scriptura is false. However the issue I am interested in is whether it is false in relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ.

You are using the words heretic and dissenters. Therefore your argument is resting on the assumption that the Catholic church is the one true church and everything that it teaches is true.

I agree with your logic, however I have no idea at this point whether what you say is true, or whether the Catholic church is just another denomination, or whether the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon.

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

There is a difference between clear history and your interpretation of history.

For example clear history is “In the 1500s the Protestant Reformation occurred”.

Your interpretation would be “During the 1500s the heretic Martin Luther revolted against the Catholic Church and formed his own religion”.

First, the definitions given here, for Sola Scriptura, are not provable.

Maybe they aren’t provable. It depends what the assumptions are I suppose.

However, I have my doubts whether they are disprovable. I have not read anything here that disproves them.

Secondly, they also deny the Teaching of the Church.

I agree that they are counter to the teaching of your church. But that gets back to my observation on dependencies.

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

Well, if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura using the approach that it is counter to Catholicism, then you must prove the Church is true. This is simple logic and rules of debate.

I have no interest at this time in proving that it is false.

 

[Lev23]

In fact, a great many of the messianic prophesies that Our Lord fulfilled are implied in the Old Testament and that is one thing that has caused the Jews to stumble over Him to this day.

.

But then again, we get our faith in Christ handed down to us by Jews, isn’t that just a hoot?!

Let us thank God for Jews!

 

[onenow1]

I just love Proverbs 30:6 don’t you?

GOD, in His Infinite Wisdom, would never have given us one inerrant book,
without first giving us one authorized and infallible interpreter for it.
However, GOD did first give us one authorized infallible interpreter for it. He gave us His Church.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[TriuneUnity]

I just love Proverbs 30:6 don’t you?

GOD, in His Infinite Wisdom, would never have given us one inerrant book,
without first giving us one authorized and infallible interpreter for it.
However, GOD did first give us one authorized infallible interpreter for it. He gave us His Church.

Peace, OneNow1

Who was the infallible interpreter of the Old Testament? Sorry I had to ask

 

[Lev23]

I just love Proverbs 30:6 don’t you?

Peace, OneNow1

Yes, I do love it!

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Just think how men added to this prophecy of God-
Jeremiah 31:34
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

 

[onenow1]

Who was the infallible interpreter of the Old Testament? Sorry I had to ask

I believe Jesus a few times to his adversaries, and the road to emmaus. Talk about infallible.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[TriuneUnity]

I believe Jesus a few times to his adversaries, and the road to emmaus. Talk about infallible.

Peace, OneNow1

Well yeah, that goes without saying. What about the 400 years before His incarnation, which is when the OT was completed

 

[abucs]

There are a few problems with scripture alone.

The first is we have to agree on what is scripture and why.

The next can be seen in the story mentioned earlier in the thread when Jesus was tempted by the devil. The poster was quoting Jesus as saying ‘It is written’ and then quoting the OT as a source of authority to make his point.

The problem with that story is that the Devil also quoted the OT in support of his point - ‘He will bid his angels take care of you; with their hands they will support you that you may never stumble on a stone.’

This highlights the second and third problems of relevance and precedence. Which quote applies and which has the most authority ?

Another problem is interpreting the scripture for current events. Jesus often said. ‘You know that it is written … BUT i SAY to you …’

So for me the scriptures themself point to the incompleteness of relying on the scriptures alone.

The scriptures are EXTREMELY important, and a great source of knowing Jesus, learning about the context of the early Christians and what the experience and thinking of the early apostles was.
I think it is priceless and should be constantly read by Christians.

But sola scriptura literally means ‘alone scripture’.

For me this is a latter day idea and just doesn’t make sense.

It just doesn’t make sense that a book can be the be all and end all because ANY book needs interpretation, agreement, relevance and priority.

If not, then we wouldn’t need laywers and judges to interpret the lawbooks. And our lawbooks are much more detailed than the New / Old testament writings.

The bible of course is not written as a law book. It is written to detail important events, discuss them and challenge a reaction from the reader.

The new testament also finishes a few letters with - ‘there is much more i want to say to you but i would prefer not to write them down but to speak to you in person’.

The bible also spoke about a man reading the scriptures but saying ‘how can i understand it unless someone explains it to me’.

We have also Jesus on the road with two followers and he had to go through the old testament to explain it to them after his death.

we also have the descendants of the non Jesus Jews today who say they don’t see Jesus in the Old Testament.

Again Jesus also said to DO things - baptise, forgive sins, preach the good news (before the NT was written), repeat the last supper in memory of him, and also to loose and bind. These are all actions.

One thing that is never recorded in the Gospels is Jesus saying - write things down and create a new scripture.

Also, no writer of a new testament document (save John in parts of Revelation) claims Jesus told him to write things down.

Yes, the BIBLE is EXTREMELY important. But i think it to put it as the final authority is a latter day invention. I think it doesn’t make sense and the bible itself gives examples of where scripture alone does not make sense.

May God bless all of us.

 

[MDK]

Against my better judgement.

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.

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.

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.

OK. I will work with this definition.

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.

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.

I went to adoration of the Lord in His Church last night, and it was wonderful being in His presence.

With Questions,
All these words you provide, and yet you still can’t support your claim made regarding sola scriptura. What does one conclude about that? Do you actually want to try, or are you throwing in the towel?

Essentially, if you had better judgment, you would determine whether something is supportable before throwing your support behind it.

I do know you’re not Adam, and I know you from what you have claimed and said that you have not been able to follow the logic and thought provided, nor support your initial assertion regarding sola scriptura. You divert attention further about knowing you… in reality it doesn’t matter here because we are talking about a definition of a phrase that you have agreed to. I also see you get angry when you have been shown that what you see as acceptable is shown to be false, and you can’t support what you’ve claimed.

The simplified definition I provided (which you had requested one) is inherent in the one you agreed was sound, the one you could see nothing wrong with. The two rely on the same thing. What I did was provide the essence in that is better to focus on the basic tenet of it, rather than get distracted and divert the conversation as you have. He said the Bible “is the authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.” I said regarding the sola scriptura that “one explicitly teaches that the Bible is indeed the authority from which all things are judged.” These are the same. Therefore, you don’t understand what you are talking about.

Do you want to back off now from your initial support of sola scriptura? Not only did you say the definition seems reasonable, but you had gone on to say “What could be wrong with that?” This obviously means you saw it as being sound, firm, nothing is wrong with it as far as you can see. This is what your statements together say. Even if you want now to back off to only reasonable, you still haven’t even supported that position. It is not a reasonable position for Christians, as it’s not what God established for authority.

Now, you have not supported your assertion, nor been able to. Along the way, you related sola scriptura to 2 Tim 3:16, which you were shown was incorrect. Now, you have nothing at all that you have presented in support your statement, nor have you even attempted to.

I’ve already answered you several times. Whether you can’t see it, or isn’t what you really wanted to discuss is a different matter. This thread is about a topic that you’ve supported and can’t defend. I’ve stayed on topic, and not allowed this thread to be hijacked by your attempts to do so. You want to divert this into a larger conversation about the Catholic Church, when there are other threads for that.

By your faulty logic, you can change the definition of anything to suit yourself. Is that how we operate in society? There are some basic elements of sola scriptura that exist, whether you like it or you don’t like it. An attempt to define it to something else requires a new name. However, all discussion used in this thread has the basic element in common, which has been shown to be false, and which you have not shown to be able to support.

Bottom line is that you can’t support what you’ve claimed regarding sola scriptura. Why is that?

 

[MDK]

…My only assertion has been that one definition supplied here seems reasonable.

…In debate, “burden of proof” rests upon the one who makes the assertion…

Take a look at what you write. First you make an assertion, then you claim the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. By your own words, is not the burden of proof on you for your own assertion?

Your initial assertion also went beyond saying it was simply reasonable. Your next sentence includes a tacit endorsement of it’s veracity by stating “What could be wrong with that?” By further claiming this, you are saying you see nothing wrong with it. This goes further than saying it’s reasonable.

Nevertheless, you have yet to live up to your end of the burden of proof either way. Please show everyone how there is nothing wrong with the doctrine of sola scriptura, or show everyone how it is even reasonable. For instance, is it reasonable to Christ? Is it something inspired by the Holy Spirit? By what authority is the Bible bestowed or conferred as the “authority by which tradition, revelation, doctrine and practice must be judged.”

To divert attention from your not being able to provide your burden of proof that you admit is needed for your assertion, you will probably try to focus on something else. Nevertheless, it has already been shown why it is not true. That you may not like it is irrelevant.

 

[MDK]

Just one comment before I dissect the complete post.

You like to tear down, while we like to defend the truth. Your efforts will continue to be futile, as you endorse things you can’t support, and attempt to ultimately tear down that which you cannot.

 

[MDK]

But then again, we get our faith in Christ handed down to us by Jews, isn’t that just a hoot?!

Let us thank God for Jews!

Yes, thank God for our ancestors in faith, the firstborn nation. We are particularly thankful for those who remained faithful to God throughout the years, including those who recognized the Messiah and followed Him.

We are also thankful that God’s covenant with Abraham for a worldwide blessing was fulfilled in Christ, so that now Jews and Gentiles alike are co-heirs.

I don’t see that it is required to be thankful to those who have denigrated our Lord’s life, salvific work, incredible sacrifice, and love of us. I’m not thankful for those who continue to this day to promote lies about Him, nor fail to recognize who He is. These people not knowing the Son, really neither know the Father, nor do they know the Holy Spirit. I will pray for them, but am not thankful for them.

 

[With_Questions]

With Questions,
All these words you provide, and yet you still can’t support your claim made regarding sola scriptura. What does one conclude about that? Do you actually want to try, or are you throwing in the towel?

Besides being condescending in your previous posts, you are now twisting my words to say something that I am not saying. I can not have an intelligent conversation on this basis.

Believe it or not, I actually form opinions of faiths based on how members behave and act. Right now I am developing a very low opinion of Catholicism based on this conversation.

I’m out of here.

 

[onenow1]

Well yeah, that goes without saying. What about the 400 years before His incarnation, which is when the OT was completed

Hi, T.U.
The oldest synagogues have been found not in Israel, but in Egypt where the oldest synagogues date from the 3rd century BCE. Their function was to serve as place of worship. As it was forbidden to build other temples besides the one in Jerusalem, an alternative institution was installed. After the Temple was destroyed more synagogues in Israel appeared.

Quote= OneNow1: And these are only the ones found. It only stands to reason there where more ancient synagogues, places where they gathered etc. And were preached to.

Matthew 23

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice what they preach.

Quote=OneNow1 I wasn’t there but in all probability the same as Jesus describes in Matthew 23.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[With_Questions]

Besides being condescending in your previous posts, you are now twisting my words to say something that I am not saying. I can not have an intelligent conversation on this basis.

Believe it or not, I actually form opinions of faiths based on how members behave and act. Right now I am developing a very low opinion of Catholicism based on this conversation.

I’m out of here.

Actually, I found that this forum has a feature called an ignore list. I think that is a better solution.

I have just added a name to my ignore list.

 

[MrS]

Actually, I found that this forum has a feature called an ignore list. I think that is a better solution.

I have just added a name to my ignore list.

That is what it is for, I guess.

Perhaps this analogy will not be taken as a bash against non-Catholics, but I know it just might be…

so

I feel that as I stated, there are three witnesses to the Truth in the Catholic Church…
Tradition
Magisterium
and Scripture

Many non-Catholics KNOW they all exist… but simply have chosen to put the first two on their “ignore” list.

…turns out it was NOT a better solution to their protest…but actually a sad one with serious consequences.

…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

However, today the NT is Scripture. Thus my definition,

How do you know that the NT is Scripture? This is where Sola Scriptura falls flat.

For the first 350 of Christianity, they did not have the complete NT. The Catholic OT and the Protestant OT are different, but the NT is the same. There were quite a few other books that people thought should be in NT Scripture, such as The Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of John, Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, etc… Some books IN the NT were disputed such as James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation. These books are just as “deuterocanonical” as Wisdom, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch and Tobit

• 382 AD - Synod of Rome declared the canon of Scripture, 46 OT books, 27 NT books
• 393 AD - Council of Hippo declared the canon, which was the exact same list as Synod of Rome
• 397 AD - Council of Carthage ratified the canon decision made by those 2 councils

The decisions of these councils were then ratified by the Pope. The Catholic Church determined that there were 46 OT Books, and 27 NT Books. Martin Luther (1100 years later) threw out 7 OT books on his own authority, (the Catholic Church did NOT add these 7 books) which is where we got the Protestant Bible.

If the Church does not have authority, then the Bible doesn’t have authority. Without the testimony of the Church, we would not have the Bible, even if we had the Bible, we would have no way to know which books are inspired. Every Christian today who accepts the 27 books of the NT agrees w/Catholics regarding the God-given authority of the Church to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what is canonical Scripture and what is spurious.

Another place where “Sola Scriptura” fails is in answer to the question: Is God’s revelation to men ongoing, or did it end with the death of the last Apostle? The majority of Christians today do believe that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, but there is no verse in Scripture to tell us that, it’s an extra-Biblical tradition.

The earliest Christians listened to the teachings of the Apostles and became believers, and just about all of them left this earth without ever reading the Gospel of John. They couldn’t have been “Sola Scriptura” because the NT Scriptures weren’t compiled yet.