Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

  • Thread starter Thread starter BibleOnly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JMJ_coder said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If you are going to use 2 Thes 2:15 as a justification for tradition we need to know what traditions Paul was referring to. Do you know what these traditions were specifically?

JMJ_coder
Yes, it is the entirety of the oral teaching of the Apostles, the apostolic kerygma, preserved and passed on through the ages in the Catholic Church, and that we call Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we don’t know what exactly the Oral teachings of the Apostles was. All we know of them is found in the written NT.
 
Lief Erikson;4291000]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did not the church split around the 11th century and has been split since then?
If this is the case, which church is in error? Both cannot be right.
Click to expand...
Lief Erikson
Look up the scriptures and Early Church statements about the authority of the pope (the principle reason for the split) and decide yourself, in prayer, which you think was right.
Click to expand...
Is not the Eastern Orthodox considered part of the “true” church?
As I said in my recent posts, which I await a response to :), Jesus didn’t guarantee protection from error to individuals (except the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra) but to the Church as a whole- and therefore necessarily to the Magesterium he established to lead his Church as a whole.
Click to expand...
Where did Jesus promise this protection?

Secondly, if He promised it then why did He and His apostles warn of false teachers who would come into the church and decieve many?
Individuals or groups that leave the Church or split themselves ideologically from it aren’t guaranteed immunity from error.
Click to expand...
Nor is the main church either.
I went into the scriptural basis for this in my earlier posts. I await your response!
Click to expand...
i just sent one
 
Part 2
Lief Erikson;4289981]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:Lief Erikson
Here’s the important difference between the pair of us, on matters of faith. My trust is in what I believe to be an infallible source (the Church).
Click to expand...
justasking4
The church is not infallible. It has erred and continues to do so since it is composed of fallen humans. There are lots of examples of this in history.
Click to expand...
Lief Erikson
This just says you disagree- it doesn’t refute my point about the differences between us.
Click to expand...
I could give you a number of examples where your church has erred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:Lief Erikson
Your trust is in what you believe to be a fallible source (tests performed by other people, which you can review to some extent).
Click to expand...
justasking4
Not so. I’m ultimately trusting in the Author of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Lief Erikson
You trust in the Scripture and consider the Scripture alone to be infallibly reliable. But to trust the Scripture, you must trust the people who put together the canon by which you get the Scriptures. That’s human activity and opinion, a human process that your beliefs trace back to. So as I said, in contrast to my faith in what I believe to be an infallible source (the councils), you have faith in what you believe to be a fallible source (human tests).
Click to expand...

Are not your councils made up of fallible men? You cannot get an infallible source from a fallilbe source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Quote:Lief Erikson
My trust is in what I believe to be infallible interpretations of Scripture.
Click to expand...
justasking4
What infallible interpretations are you thinking of? With less than 20 verses interpreted you don’t have much. Secondly, your understanding of the interpretations of your church is not infallible either.
Click to expand...
Lief Erikson
First of all, these arguments don’t have any relation to my point. My point was that my belief is in the infallible on two critical matters of faith and practice (canon selection and scripture interpretation), whereas your faith is in what you admit to be fallible.
Click to expand...
It did not require that anyone to be infallible to determine the canon or Scripture interpertation. Did the memembers of the councils claim to be infallible when the canon of the NT was finalized?
I’ll respond to your two arguments anyway.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, the Magesterium has made many very precise statements about what the Church’s dogma is to make sure it is clear to the faithful. That’s one of its critical values, and one of the reasons Church councils have been held repeatedly over the course of the last 2,000 years. In Catholicism, it’s easy to get set straight if you have an important question.
Click to expand...
You might want to look at salvation. Must a person belong to the Catholic church to be saved? There are a number of different and opposing statements in church documents.
As for your 20 verses, I’m not sure how many verses there are, but I do know that explicit interpretations of a large numbers of verses is not necessary, because the Catholic Church only has to reveal the doctrines for it to be clear in what light many passages are to be read. If you start out with the answer to a math problem, it’s much easier to work out the route through the problem to that answer than it is if you don’t know what the answer is supposed to look like. In the same way, the Church doesn’t have to go point by point through every verse (like going through every particular of the math problem) for everybody when it has given the answer, so the process (or scripture interpretation) leading to that answer is obvious.
Click to expand...
This is one of the great weakness in the Catholic church. When you go back for instance to look at the Scriptural support for aspects of the Marian doctrines you don’t find it. Look for scriptural support for example for her immaculate conception and assumption and you find none.
Same goes for the Treasury of Merit.
 
Lampo said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You cannot get an infallible source from a fallilbe source.

Lampo
Are you STILL continuing with this lie? Again, the Bible is not infallible.
Click to expand...
Would you consider the teachings of the Lord Jesus infallible?
 
justasking4 said:
Would you consider the teachings of the Lord Jesus infallible?
Click to expand...
His teaching was communicated to you through the Church.

You must assume that those who passed on his teaching did so perfectly or you don’t even know if you have the teachings of Jesus.

Why are you so confident that the Church was a perfect transmitter of the teachings of Jesus while doubting God’s design in building the Church?
 
CHESTERTONRULES;4291345]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you consider the teachings of the Lord Jesus infallible?
Click to expand...
CHESTERTONRULES
His teaching was communicated to you through the Church.
Click to expand...
Those teachings are what we call the Gospels and are considered infallible. Correct?
You must assume that those who passed on his teaching did so perfectly or you don’t even know if you have the teachings of Jesus.
Click to expand...
True. If someone wants to argue that they were not then they need to present their evidence to the contrary.
Why are you so confident that the Church was a perfect transmitter of the teachings of Jesus while doubting God’s design in building the Church?
Click to expand...
God is infallible but men are not. We should always trust God Who is absolutely trustworthy but never man. Man is fallen and capable of errors.
 
Lampo said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you consider the teachings of the Lord Jesus infallible?

Lampo;
The “teachings” are not infallible. Do you still not know the definition of infallible? If not, that’s amazing.
Click to expand...
This is what infallible means:unerring in doctrine: incapable of being mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma.

As you can see this would apply to the teachings of the Lord Jesus as found in the NT. Matthew 5-7 would be an example of this… 👍
 
Lampo said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
God is infallible but men are not.

Lampo
Could God have given the charism of infallibility to the chair of Peter if He wanted to?
Click to expand...
I suspect not for the mere fact that men are fallen.
 
justasking4 said:
This is what infallible means:unerring in doctrine: incapable of being mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma.

As you can see this would apply to the teachings of the Lord Jesus as found in the NT. Matthew 5-7 would be an example of this… 👍
Click to expand...
Let me clarify it a little further for you. Infallibility is the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.
 
Lampo said:
Could God have given the charism of infallibility to the chair of Peter if He wanted to?
Click to expand...
justasking4 said:
I suspect not for the mere fact that men are fallen.
Click to expand...
If God cannot, by the Holy Spirit, protect fallible man so that he is “unerring in doctrine: incapable of being mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma” how, then, did fallible man record God’s inspired inerrant Word?
 
cfrancis said:
If God cannot, by the Holy Spirit, protect fallible man so that he is “unerring in doctrine: incapable of being mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma” how, then, did fallible man record God’s inspired inerrant Word?
Click to expand...
Good questions. If we look at the disciples Jesus chose they were not the brightest and He did not make them infallible and yet He chose these fallible men to teach the gospel to and used them to lay the foundation of the church all the while they were fallible. He continued to help them after He ascended but He still did not make them infallible nor all knowing. He still allowed them to struggle in the flesh as we see in Peter.
It seems to me that the one attribute that all the apostles shared in relation to Christ was their humility which made it possible for Christ to use them to record God’s inspired inerrant Word in a way that they would not err.
 
Lampo;4291455]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I suspect not for the mere fact that men are fallen.
Click to expand...
Lampo
Nice limit you just placed on the God of the universe!
Click to expand...
The mere fact that God did not make the apostles infallible must mean that its not possible or desireable.
Would you like to rethink your answer? I’m interested, what else can God NOT do?
Click to expand...
God cannot lie.
 
Lampo said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is what infallible means:unerring in doctrine: incapable of being mistaken in matters of doctrine and dogma.

As you can see this would apply to the teachings of the Lord Jesus as found in the NT. Matthew 5-7 would be an example of this…

Lampo
Let me clarify it a little further for you. Infallibility is the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Does infallibility apply to the teachings of Christ and His apostles as recorded in the NT?
 
Lampo;4291616]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The mere fact that God did not make the apostles infallible must mean that its not possible or desireable.
Lampo;
He made one of them infallible - Peter.
Click to expand...
Where did the Lord Jesus do this? Where did He tell Peter that he would be incapable of error?
Yet He can do anything. I guess this line of discussion is for another topic, huh? It is similar to the hypothetical, “Can God make a rock too big for Him to pick up?”
Click to expand...
Perhaps. There are some limits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top