Sola Scriptura contradicts Inspiration of the apostles?

[PRmerger]

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?

Fair enough.

But what you would be acknowledging is that:

-you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate; rather you acknowledge that Sacred Tradition is indeed part of the revelation of God,

-you acknowledge that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it pertains to the canon of the NT. (Unless you want to declare that you believe the Church erred somehow in discerning Hebrews, for example to be inspired, and rejecting, perhaps, the Shepherd of Hermas?) The Church got it right here, and did it multiple times, with different groups of bishops. (See the Councils of Hippo,. Carthage, Nicea I and II…)

And this acknowledgement, Gaelic, is huge. Absolutely HUGE.

 

[PRmerger]

Posturing? Are you saying there hasn’t been any scholarly work done in investigating the authenticity of those works?

What authority do scholars have for you to discern the canon, Gaelic? I am astonished that you would defer to scholars for this issue of such gravity. Are these scholars infallible? If one determined that Philemon was not apostolic, would you then stop quoting from it as *theopneustos? *

Or do you believe the early church simply decided these things arbitrarily?

It was only as “arbitrary” as the Holy Spirit guiding the Church through Sacred Tradition.

That is, of course, the ONLY way that you know that Philemon, 3 John, Hebrews, etc etc are inspired.

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?

That’s what we are saying: you use the same approach that we all do. Except we are simply trying to get you to acknowledge this.

We defer to the authority of the Catholic Church. Both you and I. :yup:

 

[pablope]

Can’t disprove a negative. Show where He is less than what I need.

Huh… You are the one who made a statement…and now you are saying you cannot prove it is in the Bible?

You made this statement…"And yes, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for me is more than enough. "

And all I merely asked is…Where does the Bible say this all you need? Are you making a dogma for yourself?

Does the Bible say this or not?

 

[pablope]

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.

Lutherans…only via what they teach…but that alone does not give them the legitimacy. How is one to know they teach correctly from what the Apostles handed down?

So it is either the Orthodox or the CC? Both can trace their apostolic lineage…so which do you think has legitimacy and the authority?

 

[po18guy]

Lutherans…only via what they teach…but that alone does not give them the legitimacy. How is one to know they teach correctly from what the Apostles handed down?

So it is either the Orthodox or the CC? Both can trace their apostolic lineage…so which do you think has legitimacy and the authority?

But, which Orthodox? Which Geo-base and which Patriarch? The Oriental Orthodox accept only the first three councils, while the Eastern Orthodox hold to all seven, but none after the schism. Which canon of scripture? There is not total agreement on these in Eastern Christendom, sadly. Of these, the Eastern Orthodox are by far the greatest block, but there is still the matter of the different Patriarchs, liturgical languages and geographies involved.

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

What you’re asking is, is sola scriptura explicit in scripture? I would say no, since it is a post-apostolic era practice. Does that make it a contradiction of the apostles? No.

Jon

For the sake of argument, was it possible that they could have taught it explicitly without contradicting themselves? EX: Was it possible that Paul could have said ‘ONLY Scripture is inspired and nothing else’ without undercutting his own inspiration?

 

[hapaxparadidomi]

The idea is that God’s revelation to mankind is the supreme authority for faith and morals. Because God is the final authority and revelation is His word to man and bears that same authority. That revelation to man first came orally through te teaching and life of Christ. It was later preached by the apostles. Then it was committed to writing. The dispute is not whether oral teaching can have authority but, rather where that teaching is located at present and whether certain CC distinctives were ever taught by the apostles.

Actually Gaelic, the dispute, per this tread, is wether the apostles could have taught Sola Scriptura. Notice the difference between you and I. You are focusing on the “present”. I am focusing on, the time of the apostles. I am evaluating the claim that some protestants make where they say the apostles did teach sola scriptura. I would like to know how Paul, for example, maintained that scripture was the only inspired medium, while maintaining that the oral medium was also inspired.

Perhaps I should read your reply as a denial that sola scriptura was taught by the apostles?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Lutherans…only via what they teach…but that alone does not give them the legitimacy. How is one to know they teach correctly from what the Apostles handed down?

This question can be asked of anyone, including Roman Catholics. That is something that has to be looked at historically. In other words, evidence.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Huh… You are the one who made a statement…and now you are saying you cannot prove it is in the Bible?

You made this statement…"And yes, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection for me is more than enough. "

And all I merely asked is…Where does the Bible say this all you need? Are you making a dogma for yourself?

Does the Bible say this or not?

Does the Bible say I have life in His name? Does it say He is my righteousness, wisdom and sanctification? What do I need that He is lacking in supplying?

 

[Tomster]

This question can be asked of anyone, including Roman Catholics. That is something that has to be looked at historically. In other words, evidence.

Historically speaking G.B.

I provided this link for you on another thread.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[benjohnson]

For me, I take joy in those people who accept the bible at it’s God given value without question. Alas, I need the bulwark of the Church to put me at ease, but there is a goodness to those that can simply say “It is the word of God” and be content.

We’re still left with the interpretation problem, but for me, I place my own acceptance of the Bible on a lower level than those who have the love for it built in to their soul.

 

[ffg]

What do I need that He is lacking in supplying?

This question got me thinking on a larger scale, is there something that we need that God does not supply?

Now I’m just shooting from the hip on thinking here, but in an indirect way what we need that is not supplied is to understand our ability to reject God through our sins.

God didn’t provide sins, those are man made.

If we live life thinking they are of no consequence. We are setting ourselves up for great pain in separation from God.

God tossed out of paradise his initial creation in likeness over 1 sin. That’s the same God we all strive to love today.

I say indirect because our ability to do this understanding is through the gift of Free Will, which was supplied upon creation, but by definition creates the arena where our choices (supplied by us) become meaningful.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

For me, I take joy in those people who accept the bible at it’s God given value without question.

Herein is my problem with Catholic apologetic methods. One’s simple trust in Scripture is always the first point of attack.

We’re still left with the interpretation problem, but for me, I place my own acceptance of the Bible on a lower level than those who have the love for it built in to their soul.

The interpretation problem is usually only for those with a postmodern angst that doesn’t have confidence in God’s ability to communicate Himself to mankind.

 

[Tomster]

Herein is my problem with Catholic apologetic methods. One’s simple trust in Scripture is always the first point of attack.

The interpretation problem is usually only for those with a postmodern angst that doesn’t have confidence in God’s ability to communicate Himself to mankind.

G.B.

Try this one:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Scroll down to the “Private Judgment” section.

 

[PRmerger]

Herein is my problem with Catholic apologetic methods. One’s simple trust in Scripture is always the first point of attack.

Actually, what is attacked as untenable is “one’s simple trust in Scripture alone.”

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

G.B.

Try this one:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Scroll down to the “Private Judgment” section.

I’m not much concerned with polemical arguments based on attacking a strawman position.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not much concerned with polemical arguments based on attacking a strawman position.

Have a nice day G.B.

 

[benjohnson]

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Scroll down to the “Private Judgment” section.

There is nothing in the ‘Private Judgement’ section that would give offense to a confessional Lutheran - we love a strong church, and we claim to be it! (Let’s argue about that later)

Perhaps, If I may, the Catholic proscription for a strong church (as I perceive it) goes something like this: The church made the Bible → the Bible is God’s word → The Bible is to be interpreted by the church.

There’s nothing wrong with this - Lutherans would agree.

But perhaps a more effective route would be: The Bible is God’s word → The church made the Bible → The church has other God given things to say about sacraments, the trinity, and salvation.

As a Lutheran, I have to give thanks for all the Baptists, Methodists and others that continue to preach God’s word in ways that I can not. I don’t say they are entirely correct, or even Orthodox. But I can’t quite come to the point of wishing they were not as fruitful.

From an ecumenical point of view (the view that tries to bring others into the church and not just a feel-good exercise) we should acknowledge their gifts and offer our own God-given gifts in return to bring them into the church.

That church, of course, being the LCMS.

 

[benjohnson]

Actually, what is attacked as untenable is “one’s simple trust in Scripture alone.”

For me I’ve never met a Baptist who just sits there reading the bible. They go to their church, they preach their faith, they pray, they listen, they raise families in Christ, they give, and they teach and learn.

I think they get some things horribly wrong - but it’s not because they have an honest appreciation and trust in God as in the Bible. And if I discount their experience, I’m afraid I won’t reach them - for I can not discount the Bible and their love for it. It’s impossible!
…

Here’s an example from my own life - The LCMS has an amazing study of what we call the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books). I read my copy, and wanted to give it to my Baptist friend.

I didn’t say anything that would discourage his viewpoint:

I simply said to him “Good news!”. He said “What!!!”.
I said “There some books in the Bible that we’ve been missing over the years, I’d like you to have my copy.”

Of course that piqued his interest and we have a great conversation about the Westminster Confession, cheap English printing and poor american peasants and the history of anti-Catholic sentiment in late 19th century America."

He read them!

…
Speaking to myself (not to you) as you’ve been really good with evangelization: it’s easier (and more fun) to rejoice in what they get correct and then give them what we know in addition. I don’t have to tear them down to build them in Christ - I can help build them in Christ on their already good foundation.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not much concerned with polemical arguments based on attacking a strawman position.

In closing I think it is safe to say that the Catholics on this message board have done an excellent job in trying to shown you the truth of the matter. To that, you respond by saying these are polemical arguments based on attacking a strawman position. Fine! O.K!

I would just to close off my participation in this discussion with you until you are ready to give us some answers. I really think you really owe Paplobe (sp?) some direct answers.

Until then, I would like to refer you Matthew 18:16-17.

I’ll respect your Sola Scriptura position and allow you to interpret those verses as you see fit.

But I will ask you two questions for now. Which Church is being referred to in verse 17? And why do think the Church was referred to at all?