Sola Scriptura: Historically Sound

[dbacks5439]

Puh-lease. I bet you guys a hundred bucks that while he was writing this, he realized that the Catholic Church is right, but in his obvious hatred towards the Church, he continued writing more falsehoods. This is more of a comical than persuasive essay. We must pray for him and for all who oppose the Church. They really need it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Excellent article; kudos to Culliton.

He did not say that Notworthy; perhaps your perception was clouded for some reason when you first read the article?

OK, I give. What clouded my mind:

some were rejected from the canon of scripture because it was known that people other than the apostles or those who were close to them wrote them. Many of these books, such as Clement 1 and Polycarp

 

[sandusky]

Notworthy:

OK, I give. What clouded my mind:

some Books] were rejected from the canon of scripture because it was known that people other than the apostles or those who were close to them wrote them. Many of these books, such as Clement 1 and Polycarp…

He is not questioning that either Clement, or Polycarp were known by the apostles; he is saying that the authorship of the books of Clement 1, and Polycarp are questionable.

That is your argument.

 

[NotWorthy]

He is not questioning that either Clement, or Polycarp were known by the apostles; he is saying that the authorship of the books of Clement 1, and Polycarp are questionable.

That is your argument.

I was never aware that the author of this Clement Letter was ever in question. I know of another Clement of Alexandria whose letters were questioned for authorship, but certainly not Clement I’s letter to Corinthians.

Because of that, I did not make the connection with Polycarp. It’s odd that he puts it right after claiming knowledge of the Apostles. That’s why I thought he was going there.

 

[wanner47]

This article lost its credibility for me the moment I read this:

The following excerpt is from the conversion story of a well-known Catholic apologist named James Akin. He is also the founder of the Catholic apologetics website, “Catholic Answers.”

It took me about two minutes to find the “About” page at Catholic Answers to verify that yes, indeed, it was Karl Keating who founded Catholic Answers, not Jimmy Akin.

Catholic Answers began in 1979 after a Fundamentalist church in San Diego, California, decided to leaflet the cars at a local parish during Mass. The fliers attacked the Eucharist and were riddled with misinformation. Upon coming out of Mass and finding one on his car, attorney Karl Keating was annoyed and drove home with a modest goal: to draft a tract that would present basic Catholic beliefs and refute anti-Catholic charges. Keating signed the tract “Catholic Answers,” opened up a post office box in that name, and then placed his rebuttal on the windshields of cars in the Fundamentalist church’s lot.

That modest effort was Catholic Answers’ first publication. Much to his surprise, Keating soon found the post office box bulging with letters—some unquotable, others cheering him on and asking for other tracts. He obliged, writing 24 more tracts that comprised Catholic Answers’ total line of publications for several years.

…]

In 1988 growing demand and his own burgeoning desire to commit himself to serving the faith led Keating to close his law practice and turn Catholic Answers into a full-time apostolate, with its first office and staff members.

If the author of the article can’t even get a simple fact right, one that is easily verifiable over the Internet, how can I trust the rest of his research?

 

[Maratom]

Brian is well aware what we are saying about his articles.
Brian is in a heated debate on www.catholicconvert.com
I’m happy to read replies by the many fine Catholic apologists on this board.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Brian is well aware what we are saying about his articles.
Brian is in a heated debate on www.catholicconvert.com
I’m happy to read replies by the many fine Catholic apologists on this board.

Do you have a direct link to this debate? PM me directly with link, we don’t want to violate the swarming rule.

 

[BigTurkey]

Did anyone notice that he said "Sola scriptura is simply two Greek word meaning “scripture only”?

Isn’t sola Scriptura Latin, rather than Greek?

 

[dbacks5439]

Did anyone notice that he said "Sola scriptura is simply two Greek word meaning “scripture only”?

Isn’t sola Scriptura Latin, rather than Greek?

Exactly!!! You wonder why sola fide, sola scriptura, the disbelief in purgatory, etc. did not arise until 500 years ago. Until Luther, the Bible was in Greek, and everyone understood what the Greek words meant. When translated, the meaning is lost, especially in English. He is a classic example of those who don’t know what the original meaning of the passages are. Stupid English language…

 

[NotWorthy]

Exactly!!! You wonder why sola fide, sola scriptura, the disbelief in purgatory, etc. did not arise until 500 years ago. Until Luther, the Bible was in Greek, and everyone understood what the Greek words meant. When translated, the meaning is lost, especially in English. He is a classic example of those who don’t know what the original meaning of the passages are. Stupid English language…

Uhhhhhh, until Luther, wasn’t the Bible mainly in Latin. The Greek had long been removed from the mainstream Bible languages. Although there were numerous local translations that were approved, the vast majority were in Latin.

 

[lak611]

Exactly!!! You wonder why sola fide, sola scriptura, the disbelief in purgatory, etc. did not arise until 500 years ago. Until Luther, the Bible was in Greek, and everyone understood what the Greek words meant. When translated, the meaning is lost, especially in English. He is a classic example of those who don’t know what the original meaning of the passages are. Stupid English language…

I don’t think Luther can be blamed for not knowing English. He was German. Luther’s translation of the Bible was in German, not English.

 

[dbacks5439]

True. But, looking to the early Church, Greek was prevalent in writing down scripture. Most people spoke Greek in Palestine and that general area. To clarify, everyone in that time knew Greek, and understood the Greek meaning of scriptural passages, Mt. 16:16-19 being one. As languages evolved and the printing press invented, the Bible was translated into other languages. Whether it is in English or German, some of the meaning was lost. Petros and petras had 2 meanings and were of different gender. You don’t have that in English. For us, petros and petras both mean rock. We only have adjectives to describe this rock, but those adjectives aren’t used in the passage. We just use rock. So, in my original comment, I’m just saying that if protestants were to look at petros and petras and evaluated why those words were used and where they were placed, they could understand the real meaning of the passage. In my opinion, Luther was hasty when he saw the translated phrase and assumed that the German translation pointed to Jesus as being the Rock, without looking at the Greek.
Sorry if you have headaches. I recommend advil.:p

 

[M_Oliver]

…Traditions…

Sandusky,

Thanks for your candor and appreciation for the truth of this point. Every church has both small “t” and large "T " traditions. We simply do not share the exact same set in each category. A solution to this problem would certainly mean a lot to Christianity and to the world per John 17.

I DISAGREE emphatically. A member of the eklektos {chosen} has ZERO tradition. Give me two verses{witnesses}that tradition has ANYTHING to do with being saved.

 

[Beyrak]

I DISAGREE emphatically. A member of the eklektos {chosen} has ZERO tradition. Give me two verses{witnesses}that tradition has ANYTHING to do with being saved.

To do with being “saved”? None I hope. You can toss out that “saved” term as I did from my southern baptist upbringing as it misleads. Even people that believe in ‘sola-scriptura’ should recognize this if they practice what they preach from believing exclusively in the scriptures. How many souls will end up in hell because they think they were “saved” and failed to live a Christian life as we Catholics know you need to do?

James 2;17 “So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.”

Or is that one of the 95 bible passages protestants ignore, especially in their ‘sola-scriptura’?

 

[guanophore]

I DISAGREE emphatically. A member of the eklektos {chosen} has ZERO tradition. Give me two verses{witnesses}that tradition has ANYTHING to do with being saved.

2 Thess 2:14-15
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Do you not think this is saying we must “hold firm” to the gospel in order to obtain the glory? does it not say that the oral traditions are equally important as the writings in reinforcing that firmness?

1 Cor 11:1-2
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

Christ learned and transferred the traditions. why would Paul commend them, if it was not appropriate to keep the traditions, as this was how Christ was imitated?

James 1:21
21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. "

What “word” is James speaking of here? the gospels had not yet been written, and the people did not have their own copies of the old testament. they heard the Word preached at synagogue, but the “word” was primarily oral, and transmitted by memorization. These include the traditions that Paul speaks of, which are by word of mouth, or by letter.

and again

1 Cor 11:23

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord…

How did Paul receive this teaching? He was not with the 12, and he did not study under them. He went away to Arabia for many years. how did he deliver the teachings? He did this long before the first letters were ever written, and any of the new testament was assembled. It was all oral tradition.

Jesus taught that those who heard his words, and did them would have eternal life. His words were preserved in oral tradition for a generation before they came to paper.

 

[kaycee]

2 Thess 2:14-15
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Do you not think this is saying we must “hold firm” to the gospel in order to obtain the glory? does it not say that the oral traditions are equally important as the writings in reinforcing that firmness?

1 Cor 11:1-2
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

Christ learned and transferred the traditions. why would Paul commend them, if it was not appropriate to keep the traditions, as this was how Christ was imitated? Can you tell me the important doctrines that this oral tradition contains?

James 1:21
21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. "

Actually Paul was directly taught by the Lord Himself.

In reality you are fighting a straw man here.

I believe most of the New Testament was written within 10 to 20 years of the resurrection.

No one denies that the Oral presentation of the Gospel existed before it was written down.

Certainly the verses that speak about tradition do not indicate in any way that this tradition was in any way a different message than what was written down. Why would it be?

All the tenets of the Faith are repeated many times over in different passages and yet some oral tradition, some extrabiblical doctrines somehow remained oral makes no sense.

Since important doctrine is repeated many times in many places in the scripture, whatever this oral tradition is, cannot be all that important.

The scripture cannot be twisted to make it say what you want.

 

[Janet_S]

This is in response to Brian Culliton’s article: Sola Scriptura: Historically Sound

Outside of sacred tradition and the authority of the Church, you cannot know what books are the infallible word of God (those that belong in the Bible.) Even if you restricted the canon of scripture to the 20 books that Brian Culliton said were never disputed (the fact that they were never disputed is an appeal to tradition, BTW), this would still be the case. Brian said an honest look at history will take care of the question of the canon. An honest look at history may be able to tell you who wrote the NT books and when they were written, but can history tell you if the books were inspired? Not all the writings of the Apostles were considered inspired. Certainly the Apostles must have written other things that never ended up in the Bible. Was Matthew’s grocery list considered inspired, for example?

The reason why Catholic apologists bring up the subject of the canon of Scriptura is to point out the lack of logic and the inconsistency in the doctrine of sola Scriptura, which claims that Scripture alone is the sole, infallible source of determining the rule of faith for Christians. According to the doctrine of sola Scripture, the only things binding on a Christian are those things found within the pages of Scripture since the Bible is materially sufficient (contains all things necessary for a Christian to believe). There is no need for an infallible interpretor of Scripture, since the Bible is formally sufficient (the Bible clearly explains itself). The Church has authority, but it is not an infallible authority, and therefore, does not have binding authority on the Christian believer. How can a Christian who believes in sola Scripture and who denies that the Church can make infallible, binding decisions accept the Bible as the infallible word of God since the Bible (the only infallible,binding authority), cannot tell you what books belong in it? This question was never asked or answered by Brian Culliton.

The canon of Scripture (which books are considered the infallible word of God) cannot be determined by the Bible alone or by history alone. Anyone who accepts the Bible and its canon of Scripture must become Catholic (at least for a little while) to come to that conclusion. They must accept that the Church, the bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, all guided by the Holy Spirit, made an infallible decision about what books were the infallible word of God. That’s what history tells us (the Church in union with the Pope met in council and wrote a list of canonical books) and that’s the only logical reason why you would accept the Bible as the infallible word of God.

And finally, is sola Scriptura historically sound? Does Brian mean that the doctrine of sola Scriptura (as believed and practiced by Protestants today) was believed and practiced by the early Church? He won’t be able to find any evidence of this, so it’s a good thing he didn’t even try to prove it.

 

[NotWorthy]

To further Janet S’s (well made) point, Paul wrote at least 4 letters to the Corinthians. Were all of them inspired? Evidently not.

 

[M_Oliver]

2 Thess 2:14-15
14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Do you not think this is saying we must “hold firm” to the gospel in order to obtain the glory? does it not say that the oral traditions are equally important as the writings in reinforcing that firmness?

1 Cor 11:1-2
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

Christ learned and transferred the traditions. why would Paul commend them, if it was not appropriate to keep the traditions, as this was how Christ was imitated?

James 1:21
21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. "

What “word” is James speaking of here? the gospels had not yet been written, and the people did not have their own copies of the old testament. they heard the Word preached at synagogue, but the “word” was primarily oral, and transmitted by memorization. These include the traditions that Paul speaks of, which are by word of mouth, or by letter.

and again

1 Cor 11:23

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord…

How did Paul receive this teaching? He was not with the 12, and he did not study under them. He went away to Arabia for many years. how did he deliver the teachings? He did this long before the first letters were ever written, and any of the new testament was assembled. It was all oral tradition.

Jesus taught that those who heard his words, and did them would have eternal life. His words were preserved in oral tradition for a generation before they came to paper.

I’ll seed you ONE POINT. I should have said correctly "A member of the eklektos {chosen} has ZERO tradition of any identifiable church on this planet. You know as well as I do that the Scriptures specifically command us to come out of this nonsense…

Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:4-5 ESV)

I only need to watch about five minutes of a mass to see dozens of “traditions” that have ABSOLUTELY no basis in Scripture. And I’ll guarantee that the “traditions” that Paul speaks of are REJECTED by the churches of men. I’ll point to just one as an example…

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matthew 5:44 KJVR)

Honestly. Does EVERY catholic, protestant, baptist, jw, etc., etc. etc. believe this?? You know as well as I do that they do not. If each, as they claim, are the true “church” WHY NOT? They ARE the words of Jesus Christ!

 

[M_Oliver]

To do with being “saved”? None I hope. You can toss out that “saved” term as I did from my southern baptist upbringing as it misleads. Even people that believe in ‘sola-scriptura’ should recognize this if they practice what they preach from believing exclusively in the scriptures. How many souls will end up in hell because they think they were “saved” and failed to live a Christian life as we Catholics know you need to do?

James 2;17 “So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.”

Or is that one of the 95 bible passages protestants ignore, especially in their ‘sola-scriptura’?

You lost me when you spoke of hell. Noone is going to this imaginary place. You really need to dig into this false teaching because it will be put in your face during judgement. I for one do not want to have to explain to Jesus Christ that I lied to people and told them that the God of Love planned from the beginning to TORTURE and mame a LARGE portion of His creation FOREVER. It is Scripturally false. One example…

If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:15 ESV)

THE WORKS are burned up in judgenment, NOT THE MAN.