Sola Scriptura Christians and Act 17:11

[kaycee]

Lazerlike42:

I hope you don’t wish to deny these commandments too, just because loving God and one another are the greatest commandments.

No, Just looking for the “But the Savior told us to follow His institution.” commandment.

 

[Mickey]

kaycee:

No, Just looking for the “But the Savior told us to follow His institution.” commandment.

The commandments are part of His Holy Institution.

 

[Luke1_48]

kaycee:

When read the quote in context it loses its intended weight. "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." (Letter 283)

“When read the quote in context it loses its intended weight.”

"Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.

Your dream, I think, reveals more perfectly the necessity of making provision for spiritual contemplation, and cultivating that mental vision by which God is wont to be seen. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right."

Letter 283

St. Basil is speaking primarily of the widow’s dream in this paragraph, secondarily he speaks of her consolation of the scripture.

 

[kaycee]

Lazerlike42:

Jesus’ unwritten statements are exactly those which the Church has sustained for 2000 years in Tradition (capital T, not lowercase t tradition)

I would certainly love to here these unwritten statements.

It’s very important to understand that Tradition, and all the important things that Protestants argue against, are NOT traditions developed by the Church over the 2000 years, but Traditions which have been passed down for 2000 years and where originally taught by the Apostles themselves. How do we know this? The men who directly served under the Apostles, like Polycarp and especially Clement, tell us so.

The Apostles taught all the Marian docrines?

 

[Lazerlike42]

kaycee:

It just strikes me a bit strange that there are all these very important Traditions that we must keep on par with Scripture, but for some reason none can be recounted, BUT we must keep them?
Certainly something that is of “great importance” that must be “protected and preserved” must be known to someone! Yet there is no official canon of Big T tradition.

Lol the quote is yours, not mine. These important traditions are the ones Basil refers to, not me.

But to a much more important point: canon. The canon of the Bible is something very important to Protestants. Here’s one question no Protestant can answer: where is the inspired, God-written canon of the Bible? The table of contents? There is none.

The canon of the Bible was set by the Council of Carthage in 397. The Catholic Church set it. How did they do this? Essentially, the chose the writings they had to pick from from those which they knew to be inspired, and which best represented the Tradition that had been passed down. In other words, which books are in the Bible is itself a tradition which is based on the Tradition of the Church. Those books in there were only decided because they agreed with Tradition.

Protestants will argue that God wanted to make sure that His Bible got put together, so He Graced the Church with infallibility for that one moment, but that it was not infallible after. It is simply unreasonable to assume that God would grant the Church this Grace on a one time basis.

Even if this were true, then what happened to all the people in the first 400 years of Christianity? These people neither had a Bible nor could read. If the Bible alone is what we need for salvation, and if the Catholic Traditions, Traditions which teach the same truths today as were taught in the first 400 years, are flawed, then God let 400 years worth of people, millions and millions, go with no hope of being saved!

 

[gusano]

kaycee:

Basil refers to relatively minor practices, some of which Roman Catholics don’t follow. Despite what Basil says above, he advocates something** closely resembling sola scriptura **elsewhere. For example:

• ** “closely resembling sola scriptura” …like the kid who tosses his mud airplane into the air and says; "That was close, it ALMOST flew !
  nothing there remotely resembles sola scriptura.

"Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.

**" (Letter 283)

Nothing there about sola scriptura either…I 'd say he is emphasizing your neglected DUTY , with the Holy Spirit leading you to DO IT ! (“All who are led by the Spirit of god are sons of God.”) Rom 8:14

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379)/ We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it.

Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Prolegomena, 2. Work, 3. Ascetic (iii).

** Now that one nails sola scriptura right in the “son-of-a-gun”…that is why any Spirit-led, intelligent christian must REJECT IT ! **

your servant,

gusano

have you thought of…“closely resembling sola interpreta”*

 

[Sirach14]

“Again, here is a verse taken out of context. What really happened is that these people had first been taught Christianity orally and now checked to see if its claims matched the Old Testament prophecies.” ( A Catholic Answer Tract–Tradition, Bible, or both?)

 

[Sirach14]

Lazerlike42:

Lol the quote is yours, not mine. These important traditions are the ones Basil refers to, not me.

But to a much more important point: canon. The canon of the Bible is something very important to Protestants. Here’s one question no Protestant can answer: where is the inspired, God-written canon of the Bible? The table of contents? There is none.

The canon of the Bible was set by the Council of Carthage in 397. The Catholic Church set it. How did they do this? Essentially, the chose the writings they had to pick from from those which they knew to be inspired, and which best represented the Tradition that had been passed down. In other words, which books are in the Bible is itself a tradition which is based on the Tradition of the Church. Those books in there were only decided because they agreed with Tradition.

Protestants will argue that God wanted to make sure that His Bible got put together, so He Graced the Church with infallibility for that one moment, but that it was not infallible after. It is simply unreasonable to assume that God would grant the Church this Grace on a one time basis.

Even if this were true, then what happened to all the people in the first 400 years of Christianity? These people neither had a Bible nor could read. If the Bible alone is what we need for salvation, and if the Catholic Traditions, Traditions which teach the same truths today as were taught in the first 400 years, are flawed, then God let 400 years worth of people, millions and millions, go with no hope of being saved!

Thats like saying that God would save someone for only a short period of time.

 

[kaycee]

“Again, here is a verse taken out of context. What really happened is that these people had first been taught Christianity orally and now checked to see if its claims matched the Old Testament prophecies.” ( A Catholic Answer Tract–Tradition, Bible, or both?)

Yes, the scripture was the final arbiter and judge as to whether what Paul was saying was true. Paul commends them for this. Rather simple when the scripture is allowed speak for itself.

 

[kaycee]

gusano:

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379)/ We ought carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series Prolegomena, 2. Work, 3. Ascetic (iii).

** Now that one nails sola scriptura right in the “son-of-a-gun”…that is why any Spirit-led, intelligent christian must REJECT IT ! **
your servant,

gusano
have you thought of…“closely resembling sola interpreta”

Not sure what your arguing against here. Your concept of what Sola Scriptura is does not resemble what the reformers meant. It might be helpfull if you tell me what you think Sola Scriptura is

 

[deb1]

kaycee:

Not sure what your arguing against here. Your concept of what Sola Scriptura is does not resemble what the reformers meant. It might be helpfull if you tell me what you think Sola Scriptura is

INstead, why don’t you tell us what sola scriptura means? That seems to make better sense to me.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Having wandered off topic for quite a while now, since the OP is about a particular passage of scripture and has been answered, while this thread has been hijacked as a debate of Sola Scriptura, this thread is now closed.