Sola Scriptura Defined

[Ginger2]

In the thread, “Protestants:If you don’t pray to Saints, do you pray to Angels?”

MariaG, a devote Catholic and a very nice person said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”

So, if the Bible is not sufficient, how do you Catholics explain this?

MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She understood from reading Scripture and then chose the church that matched her understanding!

 

[mgrfin]

First we disagree about what is meant by “the church”. But that’s another topic.

SS did exist before Luther.

Hippolytus of Rome (died A.D. 235) writes: ’There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source.’ (Against Noetus 9).

whatever you define as ‘church’ is your problem. We know the Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.

You have to say that because as you look back, it is clear that your church, whatever that is (and you refuse to admit to one)
is not in existence.

“Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam Ecclesiam…”

And it is clear that you have to go back to Tradition to get that quote of Hippolytus of Rome in 235, even 100 years before the Council of Nicea. Nice going, Ginger.

Of course, that is St. Hippolytus of Rome whom we revere as a priest, martyr and saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

P.S. He was a little bit of a heretic, mind you, but reconciled at the end. So, what quote you’ve made, we may have called it heresy when he made it.

peace.

 

[Odell]

Oh, you are so clever.

Thanks

I don’t know if it has dawned on you or not, but this was decided during the apostolic age. You know, when there were apostles roamed the earth. The same guys who wrote the NT under the inspiration of God. THey solved this issue under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You try to make more out of sola scriptura than it actually is. Nice try.

Ok sola scriptura dude. Can you show me from the bible that the Holy Spirit stopped inspiring people after the apostles

Verse please? I cant find it.

And for your information most the aposltes didnt even write one letter of the bible.

So there you go even people who were not apotles wrote letters in the bible. I wonder where they got there info from? was it Judas?

I really do sound cleaver

For example, you could ask was sola scriptura the rule while Adam was running around in the garden. Well, duh…there was no scriptura to be sola at that point.

Hey I could ask the first- second century Christians the same. The bible was not complete for 300 some years. They could of had one of the extra 27 gospels that where not inspired. Couldnt they?

for the first 300 years there was no bible as we have it. So what did they do then if all the inspired apostles where dead?

The point of sola scriptura is that it defines that which is God breathed as our sole infallible authority. Not the pope or the magesterium who change w/ the wind.

again who had the infallible authority to decide what was and wasnt infallible scripture? Our aposltes where dead

 

[Ginger2]

Of course, that is **St. Hippolytus **of Rome whom we revere as a martyr and saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

He was a little bit of a heretic, mind you,

…So, what quote you’ve made, we may have called it heresy when he made it.

Show me where he recants his statement.

 

[Ginger2]

The same church that in Acts 15 is shown to make a ruling about the Gentiles not having to be circumcised, which was not taught in the scripture up until that point, and Jesus was not walking the earth anymore to tell them what the answer should be.

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood, which seals the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out to forgive the sins of many.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant made with Abraham (which God kept).

The fulfillment of the Scriptures is the New Covenant which is not sealed by circumcision, but in Jesus’ blood. The new covenant superceeds the old. The new covenant God has made with Gentiles is sealed in the blood of Jesus.

Just as animal sacrifice became obsolete - Just as Jesus declared no unclean foods because his coming made it unnecessary

And all this can be found in Scripture. .

 

[jmcrae]

In the thread, “Protestants:If you don’t pray to Saints, do you pray to Angels?”

MariaG, a devote Catholic and a very nice person said, “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”

So, if the Bible is not sufficient, how do you Catholics explain this?

MariaG didn’t need the Catholic church to explain Scripture. She understood from reading Scripture and then chose the church that matched her understanding!

So, if she found the Catholic Church in the Scriptures alone, then why can you not find it there?

You know which of you I think is right, but the fact remains (whether I am right or wrong), at least one of you is misinterpreting the Scriptures - either the one who finds the early Church to be Catholic, or the one who finds the early Church to be something else. You cannot both read the same thing, and both be right about what it means, as long as you disagree with each other on something as fundamental as this.

 

[Odell]

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood, which seals the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out to forgive the sins of many.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant made with Abraham (which God kept).

The fulfillment of the Scriptures is the New Covenant which is not sealed by circumcision, but in Jesus’ blood. The new covenant superceeds the old. The new covenant God has made with Gentiles is sealed in the blood of Jesus.

Just as animal sacrifice became obsolete - Just as Jesus declared no unclean foods because his coming made it unnecessary

And all this can be found in Scripture. .

The bible also says that baptism replaces circumcision. Circumcision was the way to enter the old covenant just as baptism is the way we enter the new. Hence we are baptised INTO Christ Jesus(1 Cor 12:13) . And all this is done because of Jesus blood. And all this can be found in scripture and Church fathers:thumbsup:

 

[Ginger2]

…but the fact remains at least one of you is misinterpreting the Scriptures.

If one of us is misinterpreting, then we must not agree on something.

What is it that you think we disagree on?

 

[Ginger2]

 

[Ginger2]

:juggle:

:yawn:

 

[jmcrae]

If one of us is misinterpreting, then we must not agree on something.

What is it that you think we disagree on?

Whether Christ founded the Catholic Church, or something else. Unless I misread your post - but you said that someone read the Scriptures, discovered that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and converted on that basis.

You were presenting that as a possible argument for “Scripture alone” - I am saying, not until everyone who reads Scripture alone comes up with the same interpretation of it.

Makes sense, now?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Of course he talked about Jesus with the other Apostles. But Paul saw Jesus face to face (so to speak)

He saw him but didn’t ate and drink with him like the other 11 Apostle.

That is what I said, "Paul started preaching in Damascus, then went to Arabia, then back to Damascus before going to Jerusalem to meet with Peter.

No disagreement there.

Someone insinuated that Paul got his ministry and knowledge of Christ Jesus from Peter when he went to Jerusalem. Obviously, Paul had been preaching for years before even meeting Peter.

He was in Damascus for three years before seeing Peter. He proclaimed the Good News to the Gentiles. I don’t think Paul himself know the detailed life of Jesus Christ. He knew he was the promised Messiah spoken through the prophets.

I do think when Paul went to Corinthian and address the Corinthians about Breaking of Bread, he probably received that from the Apostles rather than Jesus Christ. The Apostles was with Jesus when he break the bread. Paul wasn’t there.

What else? Jesus Christ, of course. What do we Christians spend most of our time doing and talking about?

Exactly, Paul would probably ask Peter many questions concerning Jesus so he would preach better.

I have no problem with that. It is the new traditions that have come about from people who lived hundreds to thousands of years later that are not consistent with Scripture. For instance, would I go to hell simply because no one ever said to me “Mary never had any other children”?

Mary never had any children is not a new doctrine. It was commonly believed. The Gospel made no mention of it because Mary was still alive at the time. There was no need of that. I believe St. Luke probably received the story about the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary herself since there where no other Apostles present on the birth of Jesus. Joseph was dead at the time.

Well, I don’t think you would go to hell. I think that its out of ignorance some Christians do not know that Mary remain a virgin. The belief that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus is new. That didn’t came about until after the Reformation. I believe the Reformer Leaders of Protestantism believed that Mary remain a virgin. It was developed later on that Protestant reject it.

They failed to look at the original context of the Scripture. There is no word for cousin in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Gospel writters wrote brother and sister in his place.

Second if you read Luke 2:41-52, Jesus, Mary and Joseph went to the temple.

41 And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, 42 And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, 43 And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. 44 And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. 45 And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.

46 And** it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions**. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. 48 And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them.

51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. 52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.

If Mary and Joseph had other children, they would be mentioned. It would be against the Mosaic Law if they left behind a younger child in the care of someone else. When Jesus was crucified, he gave his mother to John, and his mother to John. If he had other siblings, he would not given John his mother. If the claim that James is the brother of Jesus is true, he would be the one taking care of his mother. This is clearly not the case here. James is Jesus’ cousin or kinsman.

I tell you, Ginger2, our Catholic Church does not make up new doctrine. These beliefs have been part of Divine Revelation which has been preserved by the Church for over 2,000 yrs.

And no, you would not go to hell. God would make a judgement of that. Not us.

 

[Ginger2]

Unless I misread your post - but you said that someone read the Scriptures, discovered that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and converted on that basis.

You misread. She said “I used scripture alone and was led by the Holy Spirit. And later found my personal conclusions matched that of the Catholic Church”

You were presenting that as a possible argument for “Scripture alone” - I am saying, not until everyone who reads Scripture alone comes up with the same interpretation of it. Makes sense, now?

That is not necessarily true. God reveals to each of us according to His will. Maria was sent to the Catholic church because that is where God wants to use her at this time. Maybe one day she will be sent to Africa or South America to witness.

In the same way, God took me out of the Catholic church.

It is not a matter of us being sent to different places - it’s a matter of being willing to go where God sends us and to serve Him

The point is that God spoke to MariaG thru Scriptures alone. He can speak to others thru scripture, as well.

And just because God doesn’t send everyone to the RC, doesn’t mean He can’t or won’t speak to them thru the Holy Scriptures…

 

[Deconi]

** I’m still waiting for the ‘essential’ list of books that are inspired in Scriptures and where to find it.

Hint: You have to see The Catholic Church for that list. **

Quoting Catholic Saints (Hippolytus) and Catholic Fathers as “ECFs” is a nice distortion that conviniently hides your ignorance. The Reformation commenced in the 16th century. Kindly confine your source search to that scope, because otherwise you’re only displaying extreme ignorance. How can you cite Catholic sources to support or validate a non-Catholic position. That doesn’t border on stupidity; IT IS STUPIDITY.

For the authorship of the Gospels, see Cyril (Alexandria) Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Augustine, Basil et al.

Hint: They were all Catholics!

Sorry I couldn’t find one Reformed source that knew anything about the authorship of Scriptures that I could use as evidence in a courtroom

Once I stopped laughing, I knew that would be the same reaction in court if I presented it as evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

YGod reveals to each of us according to His will.

God can only reveal the Truth. There are not differing truths - one for me and one for you. We are all either believing or not believing God’s Truth, which is the only one that matters.

Maria was sent to the Catholic church because that is where God wants to use her at this time. Maybe one day she will be sent to Africa or South America to witness.

The Catholic Church is not a nation or a continent - it is God’s Church. Wherever she goes on planet Earth, she will go as a Catholic.

In the same way, God took me out of the Catholic church.

There is one that is bringing people into the Catholic Church, and one who is drawing people out of the Catholic Church, but they are not the same one - one of them is the Devil, cleverly disguised as God, and one of them is actually God. I know which one I think is drawing people out of the Church, and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you.

 

[savedsinner]

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood, which seals the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out to forgive the sins of many.

Circumcision was the sign of the covenant made with Abraham (which God kept).

The fulfillment of the Scriptures is the New Covenant which is not sealed by circumcision, but in Jesus’ blood. The new covenant superceeds the old. The new covenant God has made with Gentiles is sealed in the blood of Jesus.

Just as animal sacrifice became obsolete - Just as Jesus declared no unclean foods because his coming made it unnecessary

And all this can be found in Scripture. .

That is very nice, but the council of Jerusalem was held in late 49 AD or early 50 AD, and the Gosple of Matthew was written sometime after 50 AD but before 70 AD.

What Matthew wrote in 26:28 probably wouldn’t have been in the written form yet, but it would have already been orally taught.

 

[mgrfin]

Show me where he recants his statement.

They chopped off his head for the Faith. Isn’t that enough?
His feast day is August 13th. We don’t venerate heretics.
Tradition, again.

"According to the inscription over the grave of Hippolytus composed by Pope Damasus, he was a follower of the Novatian schism while a presbyter, but before his death exhorted his followers to become reconciled with the Catholic Church (Ihm, “Damasi epigrammata”, Leipzig, 1895, 42, n.37). " Cath Encyc.

(Why don’t you do your own research?)

peace

 

[Reformed1]

That is very nice, but the council of Jerusalem was held in late 49 AD or early 50 AD, and the Gosple of Matthew was written sometime after 50 AD but before 70 AD.

What Matthew wrote in 26:28 probably wouldn’t have been in the written form yet, but it would have already been orally taught.

Couple of things:
a.) The apostles were there to witness what Jesus taught and they were presnt at the council were they not?

b.) Nobody denies that what we find in scripture was taught orally nor does this fact do any damage to sola scriptura.

 

[mgrfin]

In the same way, God took me out of the Catholic church.

The point is that God spoke to MariaG thru Scriptures alone. He can speak to others thru scripture, as well.

And just because God doesn’t send everyone to the RC, doesn’t mean He can’t or won’t speak to them thru the Holy Scriptures…

You took yourself out of the Catholic Church on your own.

There you go again with that “I was a Catholic” story, and now you blame God for your freewill choice.

Once we get this “God speaks to me”, it is time to call for the crazy wagon.

All those baptist preachers on TBN claim God is talking to them.
You know what he is saying: “Now is the time to hit them up for money”.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Couple of things:

b.) Nobody denies that what we find in scripture was taught orally nor does this fact do any damage to sola scriptura.

Of course it does. They are in opposition, cause Sola Scriptura means nothing more than Scripture is necessary.

It doesn’t take into account that it was Tradition that determined what was in the Canon, and how passages were interpreted.

Protestants do not want to believe that there is necessary to have a Tradition or an ecclesial authority to interprete what particular passages in SS are to be interpreted. Because of that Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence, since they all seem to have this inspiration from God contrary to Catholic tradition and belief.

Protestants privately interprete the opposite of what Catholics believe.

peace