Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleOnly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
adstrinity said:
Considering that no books of the NT were written by the time of His Ascension, no, I don’t think Jesus knew which books he wanted in the NT…especially considering that there was no NT until HUNDREDS of years after Jesus’ Ascension.

Jesus IS God, but, this is a week argument because it does not deal with the issue of Jesus, the living God, giving a commandment to His followers which was not written down but presupposes that God is involved almost 400 years later to pick up on this tradition.

That was the intent of my question, and of course, it is my fault for not stipulating that I was interested in something Jesus said or did while His human Body was on Earth, that we still followed today, that was NOT found written in the Bible.

I do not equate that quote you gave with the Bible or tradition. If you are trying to qualify it as an answer to this question, it automatically becomes nullified because this passage can be found in the Bible.

BUT, OH!!! OH OH OH OH OH!!! Did
I find something!!! I found SOMETHING!!!

While doing homework for an, “Understanding the Latin Mass,” free class I am taking, I ran across this quote on page 20, column 2 of Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of Holy Mass: Taken from Notes Made at the Conferences of Dom Prosper Gueranger Abbot of Solesmes Copyright 2007. Biretta Books, Ltd. Chicago.

“…In it is strongly brought before us what is the importance, what the dignity of the Water here used in the Holy Sacrifice. Why is Water put in the Chalice? Because, according to Tradition, Our Lord Himself when instituting the Holy Eucharist, mixed Water with the Wine, as the abstemious are wont to do, and the Church continues to observe this custom. She avails herself of the opportunity to speak to us in wonderful language, unfolding to us sublimest mysteries.”

The priest adds water to the wine because JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF added water to the wine. That little John Tesh nugget is not included in the Bible.😃
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know the source for this last part. When did this “Tradition” begin and by whom?
 
Reformed said:
Okay, please share the different councils in church history that defined the cannon of Scripture. It is my understanding that church councils, creeds, and confessions are driven be heresy and false teaching in the church. If that’s true, there is long period of time when Christians received the Word of God as the Word of God before the first council on the issue of the cannon of Scripture.
Click to expand...
This would be incorrect, since early Christians debated which was inspired and which was not. Quite a number of books were deemed as not inspired or at least only partly so; Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews were often left out. Marcion, the first one who made an attempt to compile New Testament literature, only included a heavily edited version of Luke and some Pauline epistles. Certainly they did not take the Word of God as it is now.
In regards to receivng the Bible as my truth, God did not place me in this world in the 1st century, but in the 21st century with the universal testimony of the Universal Church believing the Bible is God-breathed.
Click to expand...
This would be problematic, as you can see, since you view things in a 2ist century mindset instead of how early Christianity perceived it. In other words, you only accept the canon as it is because it is already there right in front of you; the reality of early Christianity was far different from what we have now in terms of the canon. We view things only on hindsight, and then walk backwards to glean on how they viewed it. It certainly won’t work the other way around wherein you say “God placed me in the 21st century…” This feeling of disconnect from early Christianity is a tragedy for many.
 
Milliardo said:
This would be incorrect, since early Christians debated which was inspired and which was not. Quite a number of books were deemed as not inspired or at least only partly so; Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Hebrews were often left out. Marcion, the first one who made an attempt to compile New Testament literature, only included a heavily edited version of Luke and some Pauline epistles. Certainly they did not take the Word of God as it is now.

This would be problematic, as you can see, since you view things in a 2ist century mindset instead of how early Christianity perceived it. In other words, you only accept the canon as it is because it is already there right in front of you; the reality of early Christianity was far different from what we have now in terms of the canon. We view things only on hindsight, and then walk backwards to glean on how they viewed it. It certainly won’t work the other way around wherein you say “God placed me in the 21st century…” This feeling of disconnect from early Christianity is a tragedy for many.
Click to expand...
Even though there may have been some doubts as to what inspired books belonged in the canon in the early centuries it still does not change the fact that these books were still inspired even though men may have not known this.
 
justasking4 said:
Even though there may have been some doubts as to what inspired books belonged in the canon in the early centuries it still does not change the fact that these books were still inspired even though men may have not known this.
Click to expand...
How do you know which books are inspired? The Bible is not self-identifying, so how do you - or anyone else - know? And how do you know that there aren’t other books that men just don’t know about yet - still waiting to be recognized?
 
JMJ_coder said:
How do you know which books are inspired? The Bible is not self-identifying, so how do you - or anyone else - know? And how do you know that there aren’t other books that men just don’t know about yet - still waiting to be recognized?
Click to expand...
The issue was settled in the early centuries by various “tests” that were applied to these books.

i suppose its possible the church could have missed an inspired book but i doubt it. I think the HS was at work in the process and made sure the right books were recognized.
 
justasking4 said:
The issue was settled in the early centuries by various “tests” that were applied to these books.

i suppose its possible the church could have missed an inspired book but i doubt it. I think the HS was at work in the process and made sure the right books were recognized.
Click to expand...
I agree, the Holy Spirit did guide the Catholic Church.

But, my question is how do ‘YOU’ know, especially since you reject the authority of the Church that testifies to the canonicity of the Scriptures.
 
JMJ_coder said:
I agree, the Holy Spirit did guide the Catholic Church.

But, my question is how do ‘YOU’ know, especially since you reject the authority of the Church that testifies to the canonicity of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
The Catholic church has authority. Sometimes it has used its authority correctly and sometimes not. I happen to think that it got the canon of the NT correct. I studied this issue and i think the “tests” the church used to determine the NT canon were sufficent.
 
justasking4 said:
The Catholic church has authority. Sometimes it has used its authority correctly and sometimes not. I happen to think that it got the canon of the NT correct. I studied this issue and i think the “tests” the church used to determine the NT canon were sufficent.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, the canon is one of your Christian beliefs you believe and accept as inspired, though it is without Biblical support or definition.
Even the tests you mention didn’t come from Scripture.
 
justasking4 said:
The Catholic church has authority. Sometimes it has used its authority correctly and sometimes not. I happen to think that it got the canon of the NT correct. I studied this issue and i think the “tests” the church used to determine the NT canon were sufficent.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the Canon is not included in scripture.

It is extrabiblical tradition.

It is also inspired by the Holy Spirit and true!
 
justasking4 said:
It would be interesting to know the source for this last part. When did this “Tradition” begin and by whom?
Click to expand...
Tradition has been around far before the Holy Scriptures. Moses didn't write the first book “the book of Genesis” until 4200 Anno Mundi -That is 42 hundred years after the creation of Heaven and Earth- up until then there was nothing but tradition. You confuse tradition it seems, there is active tradition and objective tradition. There is Divine Tradition and Ecclesiastical Tradition, the Holy Scriptures would be a Divine Tradition, From God through man. Even the Holy Scriptures talk about tradition, Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [II Thess. 2, 14] -it would be II Thess. 2, 15 in modern bibles- you may also look up: Matth. 15:2,3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,9,13; Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4; Cor. 11:2,23; 15:3; 1Ptr. 1:18; 2Ptr. 2:21. What is sad is that you are into the Sola Scripture though you were unaware of the importance of Tradition. If you really understood the Holy Scripture (2 Peter 3, 16) you would understand that Private Interpretation is incorrect (2 Peter 1, 20). You would also understand that the Scriptures are not complete: ***“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” [John 21, 25]***
 
justasking4 said:
The Catholic church has authority. Sometimes it has used its authority correctly and sometimes not. I happen to think that it got the canon of the NT correct. I studied this issue and i think the “tests” the church used to determine the NT canon were sufficent.
Click to expand...
You believe this, but you believe it was a human process capable of error, even if this process was influenced by the Spirit. So you can’t be sure whether or not they were right. And since you can’t be sure, it follows that you can’t be sure of the reliability of the Scripture or the unreliability of the Apocrypha. Is your faith based on human tests?
 
justasking4 said:
Even though there may have been some doubts as to what inspired books belonged in the canon in the early centuries it still does not change the fact that these books were still inspired even though men may have not known this.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how long did it take before the matter was put to rest? And while we’re at it, did a Council define which of these books were inspired?
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Regardless, the Canon is not included in scripture.

It is extrabiblical tradition.

It is also inspired by the Holy Spirit and true!
Click to expand...
The canon of books in the Scriptures is the result of determining which books out of the world would be considered inspired-inerrant.
 
Lief_Erikson said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Catholic church has authority. Sometimes it has used its authority correctly and sometimes not. I happen to think that it got the canon of the NT correct. I studied this issue and i think the “tests” the church used to determine the NT canon were sufficent.

Lief Erikson
You believe this, but you believe it was a human process capable of error, even if this process was influenced by the Spirit. So you can’t be sure whether or not they were right. And since you can’t be sure, it follows that you can’t be sure of the reliability of the Scripture or the unreliability of the Apocrypha. Is your faith based on human tests?
Click to expand...
My faith in this area just as yours is is based on the evidence and the conclusions we draw from it. Secondly, it does not require us to have 100% certainity to have confience in our beliefs. In fact its not possible to attain to this high of a standard anyway. Few things in life are possible to have such certainity.
 
cfrancis said:
If I understand you correctly, the canon is one of your Christian beliefs you believe and accept as inspired, though it is without Biblical support or definition.
Even the tests you mention didn’t come from Scripture.
Click to expand...
Its not required that they do come specifically from Scripture. In terms of the Scriptures being inspired we would have to know what are the charactertistics of inspiration and see if they apply to the Scriptures or any book for that matter. Once that has been established then were on solid ground to proceed.
 
justasking4 said:
The canon of books in the Scriptures is the result of determining which books out of the world would be considered inspired-inerrant.
Click to expand...
The Canon is not included in scripture.

It is extrabiblical tradition.

It is also inspired by the Holy Spirit and true!

Who made this determination?
 
justasking4 said:
Its not required that they do come specifically from Scripture. In terms of the Scriptures being inspired we would have to know what are the charactertistics of inspiration and see if they apply to the Scriptures or any book for that matter. Once that has been established then were on solid ground to proceed.
Click to expand...
What are the characteristics of inspiration?

Who established the inspiration of the Canon of scripture that you accept?
 
justasking4 said:
What do you mean by “canon”?
Click to expand...
The list of books that are considered new testament books and therefore the word of God.

There is no list of books in the bible.

The determination of that list was left up to the Catholic Church.

Do you believe the list is correct?

If so, why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top