Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hapaxparadidomi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes, I do believe that public revelation is restricted to the apostolic period. So does the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
then thats too bad of you.You could as well start dressing like jews of the 1st century and eating wild flowers and bees in the desert like John the Baptist since you insist so much in being in the era of the apostles…Oooo…i forgot…computers are not in the bible so i guess you are sinning by your own standards since “public revelation is restricted to the apostolic period” .
Go do your homework Gaelic Bard.
 
PRmerger said:
The point is that there is no “internal evidence” nor “external evidence”, outside the authority of the CC to tell you that 3 John is inspired. It does not claim inspiration. In fact, it does not even mention Jesus.

You know it’s inspired by one reason only: because you defer to the authority of the CC.
Click to expand...
What I was trying to point out, but…
 
PRmerger said:
The point is that there is no “internal evidence” nor “external evidence”, outside the authority of the CC to tell you that 3 John is inspired. It does not claim inspiration. In fact, it does not even mention Jesus.

You know it’s inspired by one reason only: because you defer to the authority of the CC.
Click to expand...
PR, there’s been more than enough scholarly work done on 3 John (or any other NT book) as to its authenticity as an apostolic writing. That’s up to you to investigate it.
 
po18guy said:
I ask only that you re-read and ponder some of the questions that have been raised.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard them a thousand times, po. What ive yet to see is any evidence as to why i would consider supposed apostolic doctrine to be apostolic.
 
sennincatholic said:
then thats too bad of you.You could as well start dressing like jews of the 1st century and eating wild flowers and bees in the desert like John the Baptist since you insist so much in being in the era of the apostles…Oooo…i forgot…computers are not in the bible so i guess you are sinning by your own standards since “public revelation is restricted to the apostolic period” .
Go do your homework Gaelic Bard.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Catechism -
**There will be no further Revelation **
Click to expand...
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
Click to expand...
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Click to expand...
Just sayin. 🤷

Jon
 
sennincatholic said:
then thats too bad of you.You could as well start dressing like jews of the 1st century and eating wild flowers and bees in the desert like John the Baptist since you insist so much in being in the era of the apostles…Oooo…i forgot…computers are not in the bible so i guess you are sinning by your own standards since “public revelation is restricted to the apostolic period” .
Go do your homework Gaelic Bard.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
JonNC said:
The Catholic Catechism -

Just sayin. 🤷

Jon
Click to expand...
🍿 so what? your quote of the catechism is out of context of my post and i want to believe that you misunderstood me because i know u can do better than that.common!
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
PR, there’s been more than enough scholarly work done on 3 John (or any other NT book) as to its authenticity as an apostolic writing.
Click to expand...
You are only posturing here, Gaelic.

I call your bluff.

Unless you want to tell all of us here that you’ve examined each and every book in the NT and scrutinized its authenticity (for what? based on what criteria?) you have to acknowledge that you submit to the authority of the CC in her discernment of the canon for you and me.

Incidentally, you’d also have to tell us here that you’ve examined each of the over 400 other early ecclesial writings to determine that they must be rejected (based on what?) in order for you to have a valid point.

Have you done this, Gaelic?
 
PRmerger said:
You are only posturing here, Gaelic.

I call your bluff.

Unless you want to tell all of us here that you’ve examined each and every book in the NT and scrutinized its authenticity (for what? based on what criteria?) you have to acknowledge that you submit to the authority of the CC in her discernment of the canon for you and me.

Incidentally, you’d also have to tell us here that you’ve examined each of the over 400 other early ecclesial writings to determine that they must be rejected (based on what?) in order for you to have a valid point.

Have you done this, Gaelic?
Click to expand...
Posturing? Are you saying there hasn’t been any scholarly work done in investigating the authenticity of those works? Or do you believe the early church simply decided these things arbitrarily?

And when did I ever establish my examination of ancient texts as a criteria for believing that the Bible is accurate? Do you approach things that way, PR?
 
sennincatholic said:
🍿 so what? your quote of the catechism is out of context of my post and i want to believe that you misunderstood me because i know u can do better than that.common!
Click to expand...
First, welcome to CAF.

You said:
Originally Posted by sennincatholic View Post
From what u ve written you clearly imply that revelation is restricted to the era of the apostles and you therefore deny the role of the Holy Spirit and the Church in history.
Click to expand...
The quote I provided shows that the Catholic Church, too, believes that. At least that is my understanding, and I will accept correction if needed.
As for your second part, it is not related to the first, and I certainly do believe that the Spirit is at work in the Church today (in the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, in all communions that preach Christ and Him crucified) and has been all through history. I’m sure Gaelic would agree.

I might add, finally, that the clothes we where, the use of technology, etc, these have nothing to do with public revelation.

Jon
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I’ve heard them a thousand times, po. What ive yet to see is any evidence as to why i would consider supposed apostolic doctrine to be apostolic.
Click to expand...
Hearing is one thing. Pondering is quite another.

The point of all this is that our Lord’s authority, as given by Jesus to His Church, is why scripture has any value at all. Every word in your 66 book bible was tested and approved by the post-Apostolic era Church council and Pope Damasus I. THAT is why you trust the bible. THAT is why we trust its words. Without that crucial and foundational link which is the connection between today’s bible and Christ, all falls to pieces.

You have found that portion of revelation which suits you. You find it to be sufficient. And, so far, it has apparently been enough.
 
PRmerger said:
The point is that there is no “internal evidence” nor “external evidence”, outside the authority of the CC to tell you that 3 John is inspired. It does not claim inspiration. In fact, it does not even mention Jesus.

You know it’s inspired by one reason only: because you defer to the authority of the CC.
Click to expand...
P.s. Even if deferring to the CC were the sole and only reason to believe the Bible is inspired, that would do nothing to demonstrating that the modern RCC and the church of the 4th century were dogmatically identical. Why I should I believe you over the Orthodox or Lutherans, who also claim the same?
 
po18guy said:
Hearing is one thing. Pondering is quite another.

The point of all this is that our Lord’s authority, as given by Jesus to His Church, is why scripture has any value at all. Every word in your 66 book bible was tested and approved by the post-Apostolic era Church council and Pope Damasus I. THAT is why you trust the bible. THAT is why we trust its words. Without that crucial and foundational link which is the connection between today’s bible and Christ, all falls to pieces.

You have found that portion of revelation which suits you. You find it to be sufficient. And, so far, it has apparently been enough.
Click to expand...
You’re approaching the subject with the attitude that I do not take into consideration the post-apostolic church as a witness to the verity of Scripture. Please engage in discussion with me as if I’m a human being who has investigated these issues and that I’m not an internet persona who is just a target for triumphalistic apologetic statements that have no real value beyond prima faciae truth, ok?

And yes, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for me is more than enough.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
And yes, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for me is more than enough.
Click to expand...
Then why, may I ask, spend so much time investigating the issues? I don’t think that Po18guy’s post sounded triumphalistic - just a basic Catholic explanation, and rather to the point. If you don’t want to accept it, that’s up to you. But a Catholic is gonna give a Catholic POV.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
P.s. Even if deferring to the CC were the sole and only reason to believe the Bible is inspired, that would do nothing to demonstrating that the modern RCC and the church of the 4th century were dogmatically identical. Why I should I believe you over the Orthodox or Lutherans, who also claim the same?
Click to expand...
Pride perhaps…🤷

Which were there since pentecost? Cannot be the Lutherans.

Which are products of rebellion to authority?

1Sam15:
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”
 
pablope said:
Pride perhaps…🤷

Which were there since pentecost? Cannot be the Lutherans.

Which are products of rebellion to authority?

1Sam15:
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”
Click to expand...
Presumes the legitimacy of the authority, which neither Lutherans or the Orthodox will grant you. And yes, Lutherans will say they were there from the beginning…vis a vie what they teach. As will the Orthodox.
 
Following Christ is not a matter of team sports or of interdenominational competition. Rather, it should be a search for the truth, and not only truth (which all denominations have to varying degrees), but the fulness of God’s revelation - the “abundance” in our faith lives that our Lord came to bring us. We must be willing to follow Christ wherever He leads us. If that sounds like triumphalism, it stems only from Christ’s triumph over death. Yet, Jesus prayed that we may be “one” and calls us friends if we keep His commands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top