Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[guanophore]

This is exactly our point - they are one in the same, and cannot be separated or distinguished. They are not two peices of the same body of teaching; rather the traditions that were preached and taught and lived of the apostles - were eventually recorded for us and preserved in Holy Scripture.

Well, we see it differently. Those who have received the Apostolic Faith understand that there was never an effort to commit everything to writing, and we have a great body of Teaching that accompanies the Holy Word.

Can you give me one single example of something that the apostles taught or demonstrated - say - pertaining to “the way of life” that is not found in Holy Scripture- AND yet is absolutely necessary for the eternal welfare of each believer to follow? Just one! Please?

Yes, but that is beyond the scope of this thread. this thread is about SS. Apparently you are trying to support your contention that SS is valid by denying that valid Apostolic Teaching exists that is not contained within it. However, that is not the question. The question posed is, is SS biblical. The point is that SS is not taught in the Bible itself, which is necessary in order for it to be true.

What we are noting is that the Scripture demonstrates the opposite, that the oral preaching and manner of life transmitted is equal to Scripture.

I would agree that not all the apostles taught, did, thought, ate, drank, etc. was recorded in Holy Scripture- and that is not what sola Scriptura is about either. Rather we believe that all that is necessary for one to believe in order that he might receive everlasting life is recorded in Holy Scripture- and therefore the Scriptures alone are a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

The two are not related. Sufficiency unto faith in Christ is just a beginning. The practice of living in Christ is a lifelong process of discipleship. Jesus commissioned His Apostles to teach and make disciples. They did not cease to do this, or abandon their commission, just because they committed part of the message to writing.

Since you have already admitted that they are sufficient - I see no need for us to argue about it. Now I only wish for you to learn that this truth is indeed taught in the Scriptures themselves!

I am happy always to do this. It s clear to me from the Scriptures that the Apostles Teaching is equally valid and authoritative whether it is demonstrated or written. We have different definitions of sufficiency.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Agreement on the material sufficiency of Scripture does not equate to formal sufficiency.

Exactly my point! Jesus gave us the Holy Scriptures because it is the word of God that is absolutely necessary - and (even as you have admitted) - SUFFICIENT!

Let’s continue with this conversation- I believe that God is beginning to reveal the truth to you-

Let’s continue with our next passage - shall we?

I believe that God is revealing Truth to me too. The difference is that the Truth I have received is that taught to Him to his disciples, and the “truth” you are purporting constitutes a “different gospel” from what was delivered by them.

 

[Crusador]

I see.

Well I noticed that you highlighted and underlined the word “foundation.” Interesting. Perhaps you had Ephesians 2:20 in mind - then again maybe not. Either way - I agree that the “Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” which is Holy Scripture - the OLD and NEW Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the word of Christ and are TRUTH. SO if the Church is to be the ground and pillar of TRUTH, then we must uphold the truth. (John 17:17).

Where does it say that the church is the ground and pillar of the church?

Also- you cited 2 Peter 1:20, and I would like to respond to you in love and kindness - but also in truth. Let us learn from one another instead of presume upon eachother, and accuse eachother of having a disposition that we may not have. I love Roman Catholics. If I did not I would not be here. I am happy to learn, but it is the height of arrogancy to pretend that I am the only one here who has something to learn. I was a Roman Catholic for my whole life, and served in my parish for years. I have read Rome Sweet Home, and Catholics and Fundamentalists, and scores of Church Fathers! I understand where you are coming from - but it is clear that you do not understand - nor wish to understand- where I am coming from. This should be a learning situation - for both of us. This is a two way street. Please be open to this - thank you.

Now, I am very familiar with 2 Peter 1:20, however, it is clear that Roman Catholics misuse this passage as well. (Just as I did when I was Catholic)

This passage clearly teaches that no prophecy originated in the human will – ‘came about by the prophet’s own interpretation’ – “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (vv 20, 21). This is understood by many modern scholars to mean that it is the church that tells its members how to interpret the Bible – (Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) But the fact of the matter is – This passage says nothing about the church; it simply speaks of what God has done by His Holy Spirit.

Peter is affirming the divine origin of the Old Testament Scriptures – clearly he is not bolstering up a place for the church as an ‘authoritative interpreter’ – but rather is affirming in strong, clear language, the divine origin of the prophetic writings, AND the place of Paul among these writers of Scripture – (see 3:15, 16). So it is not the church, but the divine revelation on which Peter is placing his emphasis.

But rather than correctly exegeting 2 Peter 1:20, allowing the passage to declare its own meaning, the standard approach of Roman Catholic apologists is to impose upon it a preconceived meaning in order to press it into service as a polemic against “private interpretation.” This passage is used to argue that only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. However at least one Catholic commentary that I am aware of cites the Protestant understanding of this passage as a legitimate alternative interpretation:

“Another interpretation of this passage is: No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, i.e. prophets do not make up their own prophecies, but receive them from God.” (Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A. ed, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), pg 1183, first column.)

Now this only serves to demonstrate that Rome has not officially defined the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20. Roman Catholic apologists have no official warrant for their interpretation. They are – in fact – practicing private interpretation, in using this text against the Protestant, who has derives its meaning from the hermeneutical discipline of exegeting the text itself. The Roman apologist then – sanctions the very practice he condemns as error – assuming one standard for himself, and another for Protestants.

This is ignoble to say the least – and I am grieved to see that you have fallen for such a device; as you hurl these passages out without a second thought. Where is your discernment? I can tell that you have not studied through these passages for yourself – but are simply taking other people’s word for it. This ought not to be – for the apostle Paul has given us a strict command - “Test all things; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 – and see 1 John 4:1).

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (or on anybody else’s understanding) " - Lean on the word of God, which is a “lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path.” -(Psalm 119:105) - Rely upon the Holy Spirit who is the “Spirit of Truth.” - (John 15:26)!

Still praying for you.

 

[Crusador]

Sacred Tradition comprises the written word of God and the Oral unwritten word. The Word of God does not only mean the written word (Is 55:10-11 and where in Luke 3:2-3 we are told that the word of God came to John…in the Jordon. Does this mean that a Bible fell down from heaven in front of him? At the end of John’s gospel we are told that not everything Jesus said was written.

I am not so sure that you get the point.

The answer to your question of whether a BIble fell out of the sky - is NO. But did oral tradition come to him in the Jordan? Oviously John did not receive your doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary - or her bodily assumption into heaven while he was baptizing in the Jordan river!

This word of God was Jesus Christ himself.

So what does it prove that you can point to where the Bible speaks of the “word of God” and it is not speaking of the “written word of God” ?? Mostly it is speaking of Jesus himself, and when it says that the apostles preached and people received it as it really was- the word of God, then we heartily agree! The word of God can be preached and taught - obviously. Protestents do this every single sunday; we preach and teach the word of God!

And furthermore - I have already dealt with the fact that “not everything that Jesus did or taught was written” Please re-read my posts and see John 20:30, 31- Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

I agree that the “Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” which is Holy Scripture - the OLD and NEW Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the word of Christ and are TRUTH. SO if the Church is to be the ground and pillar of TRUTH, then we must uphold the truth. (John 17:17).

Amen! Having penned the NT, preserved, collected, canonized, published and promulgated the Holy Scriptures, we can confidently attest that the Catholic Church upholds the Scripture!

And since we believe that ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ, these Scriptures have been read at every Mass every day all around the world for the last 2000 years!

I love Roman Catholics. If I did not I would not be here.

Really? How do you know you love?

Are you here to rescue Roman Catholics from error, because of your great love?

I am happy to learn, but it is the height of arrogancy to pretend that I am the only one here who has something to learn.

Time will tell. However, I agree that we ll have much to learn. One must keep in mind the goal and mission of the forum is not to provide you a venue to pull Catholics away from their faith, but to answer questions of persons who are sincerely inquiring about Catholicism.

I was a Roman Catholic for my whole life, and served in my parish for years. I have read Rome Sweet Home, and Catholics and Fundamentalists, and scores of Church Fathers! I understand where you are coming from - but it is clear that you do not understand - nor wish to understand- where I am coming from. This should be a learning situation - for both of us. This is a two way street. Please be open to this - thank you.

It is certainly a curiosity. most people leave the Catholic faith because they never understood it. You however, seem to be somewhat of an anomaly.

Now, I am very familiar with 2 Peter 1:20, however, it is clear that Roman Catholics misuse this passage as well. (Just as I did when I was Catholic)

This passage clearly teaches that no prophecy originated in the human will – ‘came about by the prophet’s own interpretation’ – “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (vv 20, 21). This is understood by many modern scholars to mean that it is the church that tells its members how to interpret the Bible – (Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) But the fact of the matter is – This passage says nothing about the church; it simply speaks of what God has done by His Holy Spirit.

I agree.

Peter is affirming the divine origin of the Old Testament Scriptures – clearly he is not bolstering up a place for the church as an ‘authoritative interpreter’ – but rather is affirming in strong, clear language, the divine origin of the prophetic writings, AND the place of Paul among these writers of Scripture – (see 3:15, 16). So it is not the church, but the divine revelation on which Peter is placing his emphasis.

I do agree about Peter affirming the Source of the scriptures, but he is also doing so on the basis of the ignorant who are twisting. Therefore, his comments are to be taken in the context of an authoritative interpreter.

But rather than correctly exegeting 2 Peter 1:20, allowing the passage to declare its own meaning, the standard approach of Roman Catholic apologists is to impose upon it a preconceived meaning in order to press it into service as a polemic against “private interpretation.” This passage is used to argue that only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.

No, I think it is worse than this. I think that it is argued that no Roman Catholic can, or should, make private interpretations.

Now this only serves to demonstrate that Rome has not officially defined the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20. Roman Catholic apologists have no official warrant for their interpretation. They are – in fact – practicing private interpretation, in using this text against the Protestant, who has derives its meaning from the hermeneutical discipline of exegeting the text itself. The Roman apologist then – sanctions the very practice he condemns as error – assuming one standard for himself, and another for Protestants.

Sad but true!

I disagree, though, about the Church teaching. It is within the boundaries of apologists to use it this way because the Church has consistently taught that the Scriptures should not be separated from the Holy Tradition that produced them. this is infallible teaching, and applies to ALL the verses.

 

[onenow1]

This word of God was Jesus Christ himself.

The word of God can be preached and taught - obviously. Protestents do this every single sunday; we preach and teach the word of God!

Quote= OneNow1, So do we everyday of the week including Sundays. The one thing you are missing is the Liturgy of the word the Mass which is also right out of the Gospels.

Revelation 1​

3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

OneNow1=This book of revelation describes the Catholic Mass pretty well.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Crusador]

Amen! Having penned the NT, preserved, collected, canonized, published and promulgated the Holy Scriptures, we can confidently attest that the Catholic Church upholds the Scripture!

Ok, so where does it say that the church is to uphold the church? Because it seems that every time you respond, you are not satisfied with upholding Scripture, but always want to hold forth the Catholic church. But this is not the Church’s calling. The Church is not supposed to point to the Church. The Apostle’s never appealed to or pointed to the Church in all of their evangelistic out-reach. They always pointed to Christ – and appealed to Scripture alone. Can you give me one example of an apostle or evangelist pointing sinners to the Church, or appealing to the Church for their declarations?

And since we believe that ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ, these Scriptures have been read at every Mass every day all around the world for the last 2000 years!

More power to you. It is a shame though – how your church has existed for over 2000 years and yet there are passages of Holy Scripture that have never been read, and never will be read or expounded in these daily “Masses” around the world. Our Churches preach from Genesis to Revelation – expounding the Scriptures every week, so that if you attend our Church for a few years you will have a working knowledge of the entire testimony of Holy Writ. Truly, then – we are they who uphold the Scriptures.

Really? How do you know you love? Are you here to rescue Roman Catholics from error, because of your great love?

I know I love because “love rejoices in the truth.” I am not here to convert anyone, or to “rescue” anyone. I am here to share the truth with you and with all- therefore I am acting in love as I do so.

Time will tell. However, I agree that we ll have much to learn. One must keep in mind the goal and mission of the forum is not to provide you a venue to pull Catholics away from their faith, but to answer questions of persons who are sincerely inquiring about Catholicism.

The goal and mission of the forum is respected by us Protestants. By all means, do your thing. We are not attempting to pull Catholics away from their faith. We are here to make sure that in answering the questions of persons who are sincerely inquiring about Catholicism – you do not mis-represent us. All we ask for is a fair representation, and so far I have seen everything but sincerely informed statements about Protestantism.

Furthermore – I am on a thread that is in the NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIONS category, and I am participating on a thread about a Protestant doctrine. You know as well as I do that this thread is designed to denigrate our faith and our beliefs. Would it not be ignoble to restrict my comments and force me to sit back and watch as you misrepresent our faith? You threaten Protestants with kicking us off as soon as you sense that you cannot overthrow the truth that we proclaim. We are not afraid of that – but even more importantly – everyone can see the sharp double standard that is being used. If this forum is called “Catholic answers” – then why should you be so scared when Protestants begin asking the real questions? Really there is no need to “pull rank” by mentioning the forum rules – as if I am in violation of them. I am asking questions and fully participating in these conversations. I am responding point for point, and not just repeating myself aimlessly without engaging with the arguments that you confront me with. On the other hand – you continue to do nothing but boast in your church – when the topic is Sola Scriptura. I have been willing to engage about the Sufficiency of Scripture ALONE, and yet you had seemed to think that I was off topic. Clearly you are not satisfied with this conversation about Scripture – because it doesn’t allow you the room to shift over into your favorite topics. But this thread is about Scripture- and I have kept it at that, except when I have been obligated to respond to someone’s groundless assertions.

It is certainly a curiosity. most people leave the Catholic faith because they never understood it. You however, seem to be somewhat of an anomaly.

I disagree – most people leave the Catholic faith as soon as they truly understand it.

I do agree about Peter affirming the Source of the scriptures, but he is also doing so on the basis of the ignorant who are twisting. Therefore, his comments are to be taken in the context of an authoritative interpreter.

I disagree – please explain to me why his comments “are to be” taken in the context of an authoritative interpreter again? Is it because he said that unlearned men wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction? Ok fine. SO here is the perfect opportunity for Peter to tell his readers who this authoritative or “infallible” interpreter is . . . and yet he gives no such information. What a shame. You say that I am to be taking his comments in a context that is absent from the context. Hmm. This is not working for you.

I disagree, though, about the Church teaching. It is within the boundaries of apologists to use it this way because the Church has consistently taught that the Scriptures should not be separated from the Holy Tradition that produced them. This is infallible teaching, and applies to ALL the verses.

Ok – so where in the history of the first 300 years of the early church do we find any such a tradition that would be in line with your interpretation? Which church father says that there is to be no “private interpretation” of the Christian, and that the Church has an infallible and authoritative teaching magisterium? Can you provide this for us? If not then what are you saying? If your church has given no official teaching on the proper interpretation of this passage – how can you say that you have the warrant to interpret it?

The truth of the matter is that this “private interpretation” in 2 Peter 1:20 is referring to the PROPHET who WROTE the PROPHECY – not the Christian who reads it. :tsktsk:

 

[guanophore]

Ok, so where does it say that the church is to uphold the church? Because it seems that every time you respond, you are not satisfied with upholding Scripture, but always want to hold forth the Catholic church.

It is God who upholds the Church.

“Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.” Jude 24-25

Why would I be satisfied to uphold only the Scripture? I believe that the Revelation of God is not confined to scripture…

But this is not the Church’s calling. The Church is not supposed to point to the Church.

I agree. The Church’s mission is to point to Christ. He is the Truth, and the Church is the pillar and foundation upon which He stands. If we uphold Him, we have done that which is our duty.

The Apostle’s never appealed to or pointed to the Church in all of their evangelistic out-reach. They always pointed to Christ – and appealed to Scripture alone.

No. The Church never suffered from "scripture alone’ until the Reformation.

Can you give me one example of an apostle or evangelist pointing sinners to the Church, or appealing to the Church for their declarations?

Jesus identified Himself completely with the Church, so there is no need to make a distinction.

More power to you. It is a shame though – how your church has existed for over 2000 years and yet there are passages of Holy Scripture that have never been read, and never will be read or expounded in these daily “Masses” around the world.

This seems like a rather self centered and small minded comment…

I am sure it must be influenced by personal experience, but it also seems like a reflection of prejudice.

Our Churches preach from Genesis to Revelation – expounding the Scriptures every week, so that if you attend our Church for a few years you will have a working knowledge of the entire testimony of Holy Writ. Truly, then – we are they who uphold the Scriptures.

That is very Catholic of you.

I know I love because “love rejoices in the truth.” I am not here to convert anyone, or to “rescue” anyone. I am here to share the truth with you and with all- therefore I am acting in love as I do so.

Ok. Just so you know that this is a violation of the forum rules, so your stay may not be long. CAF is not here for you to pander anti-Catholic ideas.

The goal and mission of the forum is respected by us Protestants.

This is also a sweeping generalization, and not untrue. I hope it will be true of yourself, and I know it is about some Protestants, but many do not. Then again, I tend to frequent the threads where they dont’ so I know my experience is also biased.

We are not attempting to pull Catholics away from their faith.

Sure you are.

We are here to make sure that in answering the questions of persons who are sincerely inquiring about Catholicism – you do not mis-represent us. All we ask for is a fair representation, and so far I have seen everything but sincerely informed statements about Protestantism.

Certainly there have been as many mis-representation of Protestants as there are Catholics. It goes both ways. There some bigoted Catholics here as well.

Furthermore – I am on a thread that is in the NON-CATHOLIC RELIGIONS category, and I am participating on a thread about a Protestant doctrine. You know as well as I do that this thread is designed to denigrate our faith and our beliefs.

Actually, I don’t, because I don’t know that I have been on the thread. However, I will concede that there are some threads of this kind, sadly started by Catholics.

Would it not be ignoble to restrict my comments and force me to sit back and watch as you misrepresent our faith? You threaten Protestants with kicking us off as soon as you sense that you cannot overthrow the truth that we proclaim.

Yes, I think it would be ignoble.

I am not in a position to make a threat, since I do not have the authority to ban other members.

I understand that you consider what you believe is true. However, it is not Catholic sometimes, and the purpose of CAF is to present Catholicism. If you wish to purport other doctrines and different gospels, it might be wise to start your own forum! Or, I am sure you can find some others that already are running strong. I have been on them.

We are not afraid of that – but even more importantly – everyone can see the sharp double standard that is being used. If this forum is called “Catholic answers” – then why should you be so scared when Protestants begin asking the real questions? Really there is no need to “pull rank” by mentioning the forum rules – as if I am in violation of them. I am asking questions and fully participating in these conversations.

Again, I hold no “rank” to pull. Yes, it is a double standard. It is biased toward Catholics. I do fear calumny and detraction. It is bad seed, and bears bad fruit. I fear mostly for those who purport it, and the effects it has on the soul.

I am responding point for point, and not just repeating myself aimlessly without engaging with the arguments that you confront me with. On the other hand – you continue to do nothing but boast in your church – when the topic is Sola Scriptura.

then I apologize for getting off topic.

I have been willing to engage about the Sufficiency of Scripture ALONE, and yet you had seemed to think that I was off topic. Clearly you are not satisfied with this conversation about Scripture – because it doesn’t allow you the room to shift over into your favorite topics. But this thread is about Scripture- and I have kept it at that, except when I have been obligated to respond to someone’s groundless assertions.

Ok.

I disagree – most people leave the Catholic faith as soon as they truly understand it.

We see it differently.

I disagree – please explain to me why his comments “are to be” taken in the context of an authoritative interpreter again? Is it because he said that unlearned men wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction? Ok fine.

Yes

SO here is the perfect opportunity for Peter to tell his readers who this authoritative or “infallible” interpreter is . . . and yet he gives no such information. What a shame. You say that I am to be taking his comments in a context that is absent from the context. Hmm. This is not working for you.

It works fine for me!

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 **we heard this voice **borne from heaven, for **we were with him **on the holy mountain. 19 And **we have the prophetic word **made more sure. **You will do well to pay attention to this **as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Peter 1:16-21

Peter is saying that the Apostles have received the authentic Truth from Christ. No interpretation is to be separated from what was revealed to them personally.

2 Peter 1:16-21
Ok – so where in the history of the first 300 years of the early church do we find any such a tradition that would be in line with your interpretation? Which church father says that there is to be no “private interpretation” of the Christian, and that the Church has an infallible and authoritative teaching magisterium? Can you provide this for us? If not then what are you saying? If your church has given no official teaching on the proper interpretation of this passage – how can you say that you have the warrant to interpret it?

Absolutely I can provide this!

However, as you have pointed out, it is beyond the scope of this thread. Search and choose a thread on Apostolic Succession, and I will be happy to take it there.

2 Peter 1:16-21 The truth of the matter is that this “private interpretation” in 2 Peter 1:20 is referring to the PROPHET who WROTE the PROPHECY – not the Christian who reads it. :tsktsk:

As I wrote before, I agree with you. I think perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else’s .

 

[Cinette]

I see.

Well I noticed that you highlighted and underlined the word “foundation.” Interesting. Perhaps you had Ephesians 2:20 in mind - then again maybe not. Either way - I agree that the “Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” which is Holy Scripture - the OLD and NEW Testaments. The Holy Scriptures are the word of Christ and are TRUTH. SO if the Church is to be the ground and pillar of TRUTH, then we must uphold the truth. (John 17:17).

Where does it say that the church is the ground and pillar of the church?

Also- you cited 2 Peter 1:20, and I would like to respond to you in love and kindness - but also in truth. Let us learn from one another instead of presume upon eachother, and accuse eachother of having a disposition that we may not have. I love Roman Catholics. If I did not I would not be here. I am happy to learn, but it is the height of arrogancy to pretend that I am the only one here who has something to learn. I was a Roman Catholic for my whole life, and served in my parish for years. I have read Rome Sweet Home, and Catholics and Fundamentalists, and scores of Church Fathers! I understand where you are coming from - but it is clear that you do not understand - nor wish to understand- where I am coming from. This should be a learning situation - for both of us. This is a two way street. Please be open to this - thank you.

Now, I am very familiar with 2 Peter 1:20, however, it is clear that Roman Catholics misuse this passage as well. (Just as I did when I was Catholic)

This passage clearly teaches that no prophecy originated in the human will – ‘came about by the prophet’s own interpretation’ – “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (vv 20, 21). This is understood by many modern scholars to mean that it is the church that tells its members how to interpret the Bible – (Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) But the fact of the matter is – This passage says nothing about the church; it simply speaks of what God has done by His Holy Spirit.

Peter is affirming the divine origin of the Old Testament Scriptures – clearly he is not bolstering up a place for the church as an ‘authoritative interpreter’ – but rather is affirming in strong, clear language, the divine origin of the prophetic writings, AND the place of Paul among these writers of Scripture – (see 3:15, 16). So it is not the church, but the divine revelation on which Peter is placing his emphasis.

But rather than correctly exegeting 2 Peter 1:20, allowing the passage to declare its own meaning, the standard approach of Roman Catholic apologists is to impose upon it a preconceived meaning in order to press it into service as a polemic against “private interpretation.” This passage is used to argue that only the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. However at least one Catholic commentary that I am aware of cites the Protestant understanding of this passage as a legitimate alternative interpretation:

“Another interpretation of this passage is: No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, i.e. prophets do not make up their own prophecies, but receive them from God.” (Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A. ed, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), pg 1183, first column.)

Now this only serves to demonstrate that Rome has not officially defined the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20. Roman Catholic apologists have no official warrant for their interpretation. They are – in fact – practicing private interpretation, in using this text against the Protestant, who has derives its meaning from the hermeneutical discipline of exegeting the text itself. The Roman apologist then – sanctions the very practice he condemns as error – assuming one standard for himself, and another for Protestants.

This is ignoble to say the least – and I am grieved to see that you have fallen for such a device; as you hurl these passages out without a second thought. Where is your discernment? I can tell that you have not studied through these passages for yourself – but are simply taking other people’s word for it. This ought not to be – for the apostle Paul has given us a strict command - “Test all things; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 – and see 1 John 4:1).

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (or on anybody else’s understanding) " - Lean on the word of God, which is a “lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path.” -(Psalm 119:105) - Rely upon the Holy Spirit who is the “Spirit of Truth.” - (John 15:26)!

Still praying for you.

***Yesterday I read your post and was disappointed that you had not answered my questions. No, you were selective and chose to be argumentative instead and I was prepared to go searching for answers for you.

Instead I went to bed at 22h00. Just before going off to sleep I told my husband about your post and that you had told me you had been Catholic and very active in your Parish for many years.He said to me “tell him to read the Church Fathers” and I responded that you said you had and that you had read Karl Keating’s book Fundamentalism and … and also Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home…So my husband said “well leaving the Church is a retrogressive act” And that is how I went off to sleep with the word retrogressive…

My husband was only baptised as an adult and was Athiest his entire life but one day he met a Jewish scientist who wrote some books and my husband began to believe in God. He attended Mass for 11 years before he converted 3 years ago. He is and intellectual and asks questions about everything. Somehow he never had a problem with all those questions Protestants have about the Church and certainly Sola Scriptura was never an issue.

You said to me yesterday that you were going to pray for me and I want to tell you that your prayers have been answered. The Holy Spirit answered. As I woke the first thought that came into my mind…the very FIRST thought …was, “Seek not to understand that you may believe…” - take a look!

I myself was away from the CC for 27 years and I realised when I returned that I had been poorly instructed in the faith. I was always asking questions now and then some drew me to Augustine’s statement and ping*** I realised that

 

[RobHom]

You know…no matter how an adherent of SS tries to pitch the concept…it falls flat on its face…except for those people who endorse a “BK” theology…and they are really lost in the woods.

It doesn’t work, it doesn’t fly…and in fact…they don’t even believe it themselves. Its an “illusion” at best. Before you foam at the mouth and respond…think about it for a minute. (If scripture is all there is, then why are there tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc?) Face it…you have trapped yourself in a Catch-22 of your own making…

 

[Cinette]

***Yesterday I read your post and was disappointed that you had not answered my questions. No, you were selective and chose to be argumentative instead and I was prepared to go searching for answers for you.

…

I myself was away from the CC for 27 years and I realised when I returned that I had been poorly instructed in the faith. I was always asking questions now and then some drew me to Augustine’s statement and ping*** I realised that

**I am pleased that I was interrupted because I was waffling on and on…

For me it boils down to one thing: Faith!

I believe because I trust God and I trust God because of Faith! Faith is believing without doubting whatever God has revealed. I am quite happy to have a childlike faith. Do I understand the Eucharist? No, I believe in Jesus and everything he said even though I do not understand!

One more thing Crusader - you say you left the Church after many years and that you love Catholics and bla bla bla. Somehow I don’t think you left because of things like SS. I think that the real reason may be a personal issue.

Soooo, now it is I** who will pray for You Crusader.

To stop believing in the truth after you have been exposed to it is definitely a very serious thing:yup:

*****“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”

• St Augustine*****

 

[Cinette]

**FOR CRUSADER - Hi!

In addition to the above, I found some answers among my tracts re SS especially for you. Here goes:
**

***Some comments regarding Ep2:20 – “You are members of the household of God (the Church – Ekklesia)…… built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone (cornerstone). Through Him the whole structure is held together……”

From this scripture it is clear that the Church has been built on the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets. Yet in 1Tim3:15 we read: “….how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth”. From this it is clear that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Scripture does not contradict itself therefore, clearly, the same Church which has been built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is also at the same time the pillar and foundation of the truth. There is no contradiction here.

Evangelicals are fond of quoting the text from Ep rather than 1T3:15 because they do not seem to be comfortable with the latter since it asserts that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church and not the Bible. This makes sense because the Church came into existence in circa 33AD while the writings of the new and old testament were only gathered together and authoritatively placed in the book we call the Bible at Catholic Councils in 382 and in 393 AD, nearly 4 centuries later.

2Pet 1:20 – Regarding the fact that the interpretation of scriptural prophesy is never a matter for the individual: whether this text is referring to the fallacy of private interpretation of the Bible or to the fact that Prophesy comes directly from the mouth of God, it shows the wisdom of 2Pet 3:16 – “there are many things in scripture hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction” as also Prov 3:5-6: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding” . Also in Acts 8:30-31 the Eunoch told Phillip that he needed someone to guide him to understand the passage from Is he was reading. Neh 8:8 is also pertinent: “and Esra read the law of God translating and giving the sense so that the people understood what was read.”

Just as the Jews had the chair of Moses as an authoritative guide (Matt 23:2-3), so Jesus has given his Church an authoritative Magisterium (teaching office) to preserve believers from error in Matt 16:18-19, that “the gates of hell would not overcome it and that the keys of the kingdom (authority) would be given to Peter the first chief pastor of the Church and his successors. Note the interesting parallel in Is 22:22. Re the institution of the Church’s Magisterium see also Matt 28:20, Acts 2:14-36 and Luke 10:16 etc.

Jude 1:11 is also interesting because it mentions Korah’s rebellion (Num 16:1-35) where Korah and his followers rebelled against the lawful authority of Moses and the Priests, just as Luther and others rebelled against the lawful authority of the Church and the Papacy and its authority, spawning the erroneous idea of private interpretation of scripture giving rise to non-Catholic “churches” by the 100s of 1000s, rending the seamless garment of Christ which is the Church his mystical body.

---

****It is common sense that the water of a river or spring is always purest nearest its source as the beliefs of Catholic Christianity are, as opposed to the muddy waters of Protestantism, dreamed up 15 centuries later.

And what about all my unanswered points sent to you previously?

Don’t throw red herrings in the path to distract from the real issues. Confusion and trickery is satan’s ploy****

 

[Crusador]

[In 1 Peter 1:16-21] Peter is saying that the Apostles have received the authentic Truth from Christ. No interpretation is to be separated from what was revealed to them personally.

Although this is true - that no interpretation should contradict what the apostles themselves had received from Christ - this is not the point that he is making in this passage.

Peter is giving his personal testimony - yes - but then he goes on to say - “we also have A MORE SURE WORD” - and then he points his readers to Scripture! Clearly you would not deny this. Peter had there before him the opportunity to point his readers to the authority of the infallible interpretations of the Roman Catholic Magisterium - and yet he gave no such mention!

All he did was mention his experiences - and then for the full authority of those experiences, he points us to Scripture and tells us that it is Scripture that we must take heed unto “like as unto a lamp shining in a dark place” - (see also Psalm 119:105)!

Now - with this gracious correction - please reconsider this passage; and hopefully you will be able to see the truth.

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also A MORE SURE WORD of prophecy; **whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: **Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is from any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:16-21)

I agree with you that no interpretation of Scripture should disagree with what the apostles themselves received and experienced - but clearly this passage says NOTHING of the interpretation of the CHRISTIAN. The truth of the matter is still this - and with this you have agreed] that this “private interpretation” in 2 Peter 1:20 is actually referring to the PROPHET who WROTE the PROPHECY – and not the Christian who reads it!

Therefore if this is so - then Roman Catholics have no real grounds to appeal to this text in support of their belief that individual Christians are not able to interpret Scripture properly apart from the infallible teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church!

Wouldn’t you agree with this statement as well?

 

[Crusador]

You know…no matter how an adherent of SS tries to pitch the concept…it falls flat on its face…except for those people who endorse a “BK” theology…and they are really lost in the woods.

It doesn’t work, it doesn’t fly…and in fact…they don’t even believe it themselves. Its an “illusion” at best. Before you foam at the mouth and respond…think about it for a minute. (If scripture is all there is, then why are there tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc?) Face it…you have trapped yourself in a Catch-22 of your own making…

The reason for the disagreement about what Scripture teaches - is due to the fact that there are many so-called interpreters of Holy Scripture that have not the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit of Truth - and the Author of this book.

No catch 22, just truth - but thanks anyways for your adhominem arguments and your “private” opinions.

 

[justasking4]

onenow1;4172785]
QUOTE = OneNow1 I’ll try this again ja4 and crusader, before you do more damage to scrpture.

Originally Posted by justasking4
This is one of the great advantages believing and applying Sola Scriptura. I don’t have to defend unbilical doctrines and practices of men. Trying to harmonize Catholic doctrines and practices with Scripture is an impossible task. I wouldn’t want to do it. Attachment 404

Quote:OneNow1;And here’s the truth of the matter.

Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem…
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. Now that is primacy.

you are merely trying to detract from Peter’s Primacy as the Keynote Speaker] trying to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.

There is no evidence that Peter was ever referred to as the “Bishop of the whole world”. This is where those that reject Sola Scriptura get into such trouble. Claims are made like this and there really is no support for such an assertions.

Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it.
See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.

Eusebius (263-339) Bishop of Caesarea and known as “The Father of Church History”, wrote in ‘The History of the Church’ volume 2 chapter 1, “But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: ‘For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem’.”

Peace, OneNow1

 

[justasking4]

RobHom;4175096]
You know…no matter how an adherent of SS tries to pitch the concept…it falls flat on its face…except for those people who endorse a “BK” theology…and they are really lost in the woods.

It doesn’t work, it doesn’t fly…and in fact…they don’t even believe it themselves. Its an “illusion” at best. Before you foam at the mouth and respond…think about it for a minute. (If scripture is all there is, then why are there tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc?) Face it…you have trapped yourself in a Catch-22 of your own making…

Just because there are “tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of opinions based on scriptures, etc” does not mean the fault lies with the principle of Sola Scriptura but how people interpret the facts at hand. For example there is wide and universal belief among those who believe in Sola Scriptura for the following:

1. Christ is God
2. The Trinity
3. The fall of man
4. Christ died for our sins and rose again
5. The Scriptures alone are the Word of God

On the other hand those that reject Sola Scriptura are not as unified as imagined. Even with a supposedly infallible interpreter there is a wide divergent of interpretations of the Scriptures. Look up almost any verse in the Scriptures in a couple of Catholic commentaries and you will not always find identical answers. Revelation 12 is a case in point. Not all catholic commentators agree that the woman is Mary.

The second problem with those who reject Sola Scriptura is demonstrating exactly what Sacred Tradition is and knowing all of it. There is no such exhaustive list of exactly what it is.

Third, the Catholic church has infallibly less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means that there is no way for a Catholic to know with certainty if she is interpreting a verse the way the church understands the verse to mean.

 

[Crusador]

And what about all my unanswered points sent to you previously? Don’t throw red herrings in the path to distract from the real issues. Confusion and trickery is satan’s ploy

Two things: [because these are the relevant things of your post]

1. The Bible may not have used the term “sufficiency” in John 20:30, 31, but it certainly taught it. If you cannot understand this then let me help you. Jehovah’s Witnesses try to use your method to disprove the Trinity - “the word Trinity is nowhere in Scripture!” they say - and we respond -“The Bible may not SAY that God is a Trinity, but the Bible sure TEACHES it.” And so I say to you - John 20:30, 31 may not SAY that the Scriptures are sufficient, but it sure TEACHES it!

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: BUT these things ARE written, SO THAT you would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing YOU WOULD HAVE LIFE through his name.” (John 20:30, 31)

My point in bringing this passage into play was to establish that the Scriptures – the written word of the Gospel – are certainly sufficient [whether they be read, or whether they be heard through preaching] for one to believe and receive eternal life.

Would you dare to contend with this point?

1. I never asserted that the Church is unnecessary or that it is not needed! And this is not what Sola Scriptura teaches! Please hear me:

All your references to Scripture passages such as, 2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30, 31, Nehemiah 8:8, etc, do no damage to our doctrine - they only establish Sola Scriptura! The Church is necessary, yes – but what is not necessary – and even problematic, is when the Church begins to preach and teach unbiblical, man-made traditions, and attempts to bind the consciences of unlearned men and women to these teachings, to the point that they are considered to be equal with Holy Scripture. Please follow me:

In all of these passages – we see that the Church – [teachers and evangelists] are preaching Christ FROM THE SCRIPTURES. Acts 8 shows Philip preaching Christ from the text of Isaiah 53. Nehemiah 8:8 says that what was being explained to the people were the scriptures. In 2 Peter 3:16 the rebuke was not to men and women holding to the teachings of Scripture as being a sufficient revelation of Christ and Redemption – NO! The rebuke was to false teachers who distort the meaning of Scripture – mainly the writings of Paul.

Peter does tell us that some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand – and Protestants will agree – however Peter’s rebuke is not to individual Christians who are attempting to learn from the Scriptures – but to false prophets attempting to twist the Scriptures to deceive Christians! Please read chapter two of this same epistle, and grasp the context of Peter’s words – his emphasis is on those who [like Jude said] “have not the Spirit” (Jude 1:19) - his rebuke is not towards the true believers who holds faithfully to what the Scriptures plainly declare!

FWI: Sola Scriptura is not against the Church of Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura states that the Church of Jesus Christ is to operate in accordance with Holy Scripture – and that Scripture is the highest court of appeal, for Holy Scripture is the ultimate authority for the Church. It teaches that since the Scriptures alone are God-breathed Divine Revelation, the Church is to teach, preach, instruct, warn, comfort, strengthen, and confirm the saints according to them alone.

We can preach the gospel sufficiently from the Scriptures alone. Men and women can be saved by believing the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has been recorded and preserved in Scripture alone. This is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura – so all your ideas about Protestants believing that the Church of Jesus Christ is not necessary to the accomplishment of the realized salvation of God’s people is groundless – and completely misinformed.

I think it would be better if you went and did some first hand research. Please find out what Protestants truly teach before you attempt to disprove it. Because if you did this, then you would realize that the principle of Sola Scriptura could not be FULLY exercised until all of Scripture had been recorded; for while revelation was still being given by God, the practice of sola Scriptura was being practiced in increasing measures.

Also- I will give you some helpful insight on my next post about the canonization of the New Testament [which will not be a violation of the topic of this thread - since you repeatedly bring it up - I am obligated to answer it]

For the meantime- I recommend that you read the TRILOGY:

Holy Scripture, The Ground and Pillar of our Faith by King and Webster.

Volume One: A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura

Volume Two: An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura

Volume Three: The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura

This way – if you still disagree, you will at least know what you are disagreeing with!

 

[Crusador]

And what about all my unanswered points sent to you previously?Don’t throw red herrings in the path to distract from the real issues. Confusion and trickery is satan’s ploy

OK- I will address your “council” arguments that propagate the false notion that it is the Church who determines the Scriptures.

The canon is not ‘determined’ by the church or church leaders. The church did not give us the Bible. Rather, *God gave the Bible to His people, the church, and not the other way around. *Every book written by the inspiration of God is, by definition, canonical. It is canonical because it is the Word of God, not because of any human decision to regard it as such. Therefore the canon of the Scripture was completed when the last book of the New Testament was written, even though all Christians did not yet possess all the canonical books collected in one book.

The New Testament books were given to the churches as sacred Scripture. During the apostolic age, Christians were aware that new books were being added to the Scriptures, which were of equal authority to the Old Testament scriptures. These books and epistles were copied, circulated among the churches, and passed on to succeeding generations. There was a general consensus among Christians on most books of the New Testament, though there were some doubts about a few.

By the fourth century, there was a general agreement on all books of the New Testament, both in the eastern and the western church. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the first to formally identify the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. The canonical books were listed in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. Later on the Western church accepted the same books at the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). Having received from the Jews the books of the Old Testament and from our Christian forefathers the books of the New, today we possess the complete Bible.

Catholic apologists often argue about the canon, either to discredit Sola Scriptura (the Bible is the sole, infallible rule of faith), or to elevate the authority of the magisterium and tradition. They employ three basic arguments, all of which are fallacious.

1. The canon cannot be ascertained from Scripture alone

No, we cannot, but we don’t have to either. The Bible is not a doctrine to be determined from the Bible itself. Rather, Scripture was given by God to His people as the infallible rule of faith, and as such it has been recognized and handled to succeeding generations. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible, but there is something even better. Our confidence that we possess all the correct books of the Bible rests in the goodness and omnipotence of our God who both gave and preserved His Word for His children. In His wise providence, God has so directed His people (fallible and imperfect as they are) to recognize for certain His Holy Word. The Good Shepherd had promised that His sheep would hear His voice, and that they will not be mislead by the voice of a stranger - and that is exactly what happened, and what continues to happen to this day. “My sheep hear my voice!”

2 The canon cannot be known apart from church tradition.

In a sense, this is true. Our forefathers cherished and preserved the sacred writings, and the Lord directed the church to a general consensus on all the books. We have received from their hands the 27 books of the New Testament. We may call this ‘tradition’ - a heritage that is passed on from one generation to the next.

This ‘tradition’ has nothing to do with the concept of ‘Sacred Tradition’ of the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘table of contents’ was not passed orally from one bishop to the other, until somebody decided to publish it! Rather, the books that were already regarded as Scripture by the churches were included in the list of canonical books- and passed on to us.

3.The canon cannot be known with certainty apart from the infallible magisterium.

We are told that unless we rely on the decision of the infallible Church magisterium, we have no sure basis for knowing the extent of the canon. How can we be sure that the early Christians did not exclude an inspired book, or included a book that is not inspired?

It would be nice to have an infallible magisterium to declare infallibly the list of canonical books. Unfortunately, there are two big problems with this fantasy. First, historically it did not happen that way. Secondly, how can we know that the magisterium is infallible to start with?

From the Roman Catholic standpoint, it was not until the sixteenth century at the Council of Trent, that a general council declared ‘infallibly’ the books of the Bible. (The councils of Hippo and Carthage were local synods, and could not be considered infallible, since the list of Old Testament books was different from that given by Trent. Indeed, if Trent is correct, then Hippo and Carthage were not merely fallible, but actually mistaken). Yet for fifteen hundred years and more, Christians had built their life and hope on the teaching of those books, being fully confident that they are the Word of God, even though there was no declaration by an infallible magisterium. Today, Evangelicals continue to walk in the steps of their forefathers, having full assurance of the authenticity of the books of the Bible, apart from any ‘infallible’ declaration by a group of bishops.

Similarly, the Jewish people recognized a corpus of books that they called ‘sacred Scriptures’ (the Old Testament). The Lord Jesus and His apostles reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures, implying of course that there was a canon that was generally recognized. Yet, it is clear that the same Jews that recognized the canonical books were not themselves ‘infallible.’ Jesus does not attribute infallibility to the leaders whose forefathers had first acknowledged the books of the sacred Scriptures. As a matter of fact, they were mistaken on many issues of doctrine and morals, to the extent that they crucified the Messiah prophesied in the same Writings.

We can be confident that God has providentially worked in history so that we now possess in our hands the inspired writings. Moreover, we would be wise to follow Jesus and His apostles not to attribute infallibility to the church He used to that end.

Secondly, the need for an infallible magisterium creates an additional logical problem. If we cannot know for certain the canon of Scripture apart from an infallible authority, how can we know for certain that the Roman claim to infallibility is certainly true? To say that the magisterium teaches that the magisterium is infallible is begging the question. Nor is it possible to argue from the Bible that the magisterium is infallible, for that presupposes that the canon of the Bible is known for certain (apart from the infallible declaration by the magisterium).

We thank God for giving us His Word in written form. Rather than waste our time arguing on the canon of the New Testament, about which Catholics and Protestants agree, we should move on to study these sacred books to learn God’s will and to correct false doctrines that have crept into the churches.

Don’t you agree?

 

[justasking4]

PerryJ;4170625]Most of what you posted is incorrect and can be refuted easily if we were on a thread about the papacy. This thread asks if Sola Scriptura is Biblical. It is not. Justasking4 knows this as he has been on these thread for some time now. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible and the Bible does not define what is inspired.

Why is it necessary for the Scriptures to define specifically what is inspired?
On what grounds does the church know which books are inspired?

By your reasoning it seems that since the Scriptures don’t tell us what the canon of Scripture is i.e. inspired-inerrant then the Scriptures cannot be inspired. Not even a church can make something that is not inspired, inspired-inerrant.

Sola Scriptura places the Bible as the rule of faith and as such the Bible would have to state it is the rule of faith; which, it of course it doesn’t.

How does this follow? Why must the Scriptures state within itself to the only infallible rule of faith?

It would also have to define what books are inspired.

Why? Does God have to put in every book of the Scriptures that they are inspired or they aren’t? Certainly the Jews of the OT knew what inspired Scripture was without this and the church accepts this. How did the Jews of the OT know what was inspired Scripture without the church to tell them?

God knowing the canon doesn’t mean anything. Man has to know the canon. As anyone that has studied about their faith knows the NT was in dispute for centuries. The NT is not self authenticating.

Of course it was self authenticating in that one of the test for the canon was that it had to be written by a pophet or apostle or on closely associated with one. Another was it accepted by the people of God. And still another did it tell the truth about God?
These and other tests were in some way self authenticaing.

I am not sure how people that believe in Sola ignore this most basic of questions. We can prove our authority easily and have many times on threads.

You do realize that the Scriptures never mention the Roman Catholic church. Correct?

When will someone that believes in Sola prove where this authority comes from in scripture.

Its inherent in the Scriptures themselves as be accepted by the church as being inspired-inerrant. This principle is not derived from the church but from God Himself.

 

[onenow1]

There is no evidence that Peter was ever referred to as the “Bishop of the whole world”. This is where those that reject Sola Scriptura get into such trouble. Claims are made like this and there really is no support for such an assertions.

Quote= OneNow, Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a ‘Father Figure’ to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes.

Jesus is the Father’s plan of renewing man to His original plan before the sin of Adam.Once again, God uses man to convey truth.

ja4, You know all the verses refering to, Peter, and the preeminent use of his name in scripture;and since St. Paul seems to be a prooftext of denial, of the one true church, Paul seems to know Peter as Cephas or Rocky I wonder why ?

Peace,OneNow1

 

[PerryJ]

Can we all stay on topic please? I don’t want this thread to get shut down! Thx!

Sorry, Crusador; however, this is the point. If Sola Scriputra is true and the rule of faith then how does one rule when the Bible has contradicting points. One has to look outside the Bible to resolve the issue and as such Sola Scriptura is not true.

The post is dead on with Sola Scriptura.