Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[guanophore]

Did I miss something? Did you point to a single word in scripture actually discussing praying to departed saints? Of course not since I’ve studied scripture for years & can affirm with no doubt not a single word exists justifying this doctrine exists anywhere in holy scripture.

All you can point to is some catechism or the statement of some church father, which has absolutely no value when compared against the word of God. I will reject the traditions of men all day long when asked to choose between them and God.

No one is asking you to choose between them ss. Intercession to the saints is part of the Apostolic Teaching that was not committed to scripture. It has been present in the liturgies, prayers, and practices of the Church since the martyrdom of Stephen.

Hey – I can’t control what you think; but I can know you’re wrong, and you are.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, then.

 

[Lampo]

Also, on your view do the scriptures and Sacred Tradition always bear an EQUAL authoritative relationship with one another?

It’s like a three-legged stool. 1)Scripture; 2)Tradition; 3)Magisterium
All being equal.

 

[Lampo]

Does the divine right to interpret the scriptures reside in the ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM? AND IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM, ALONE? I, for one, do not think so.

Why not? What makes you think that God intended for everyone to interpret the Bible for themselves and come up with conflicting doctrines/interpretations?

 

[Lampo]

Yes, I agree with these observations. This has been my experience as well.

If there is a Roman Catholic Magisterium appointed by God to infallibly interpret the scriptures then why so much confusion; so much disagreement on central issues?

Confusion among individual Catholics does not equate to the Church being confused. Some Catholics think the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Does that mean the Church is confused or that individuals are ignorant of their faith?

 

[guanophore]

The problem of course is even Catholics disagree over major theological issues. There is a wide divergence of theological views on central issues such as soteriology (which IMO is perhaps the most important sub-topic in theology). For instance there are different orders in the church, like the Jesuits and Benedictines, who have substantial disagreements regarding soteriology.

This is only a “problem” for those that cannot perceive the Church. If one thinks that the Church is comprised only of the fallible members connected to her, then it will be a problem. But if one understands the scriptural understanding of Church as containing infallible elements, the saints glorified, Christ as the Head and having as her soul the HOly Spirit, one will then realize that no contradiction is possible. While there is room for different perceptions within the doctrine of soteriology, for instance, all adhere to the One Faith that is taught by the Spirit to the Church. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Eph 4:4-6

There is perfect unity in the Church. Not all the fallible members attached to her have come completely into that unity, but the unity exists apart and above the fallible members.

 

[guanophore]

we (protestants anyway) know certain doctrines are extremely problematic and do not enjoy apostolic support, we have irrefutable historical records showing the many poor (most would say bad) past practices of Rome, so that really is enough (I’m a lawyer I know).

Ok, counselor. The next step in your prosecution, then, will be to remove reasonable doubt. This exists because all the Churches founded by Apostles have the same doctrines from the Apostles. These include the 22 Catholic Rites that are not Latin (Roman), the Oriental, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox, who are founded by Apostles but are not in communion with Rome. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to figure out how all these Apostolic Churches, separated from the corruption of “Rome”, still hold the same doctrines.

We don’t really need motive.

That is sure an interesting thing for the prosecuting attorney to say!

Is this a kangaroo court, or a lynching?

All we need is to show the act was committed by the person or entity in question & they had the requisite intent. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when we look at intent either. For instance when Johann Tetzel was wrongfully charging money to free souls from purgatory all we need to show if he knew he was charging money to free souls from purgatory to have damnable intent.

I will concede that one.

Moreover, we also know Pope Leo X appointed him commissioner of indulgences for Germany, and we know he desperately needed funds to repay loans taken to rebuild St. Peter’s (I could also point out that this man was a Medici who was consecrated bishop at age 13 – but I won’t nit pick). So we even have motive.

Judas had motive too. It did not invalidate what Christ taught, or impugn the remainder of the Apostles.

Should I give documents produced by the accused consideration – obviously the accused is a biased party so anything they produce will carry little weight. This is equitable jurisprudence.

I think equitable jurisprudence would mean that you don’t put the whole family to death for the violations of a couple members.

Now this is only one case – I can point to many others, but again it’s sort of fruitless (I’d rather discuss the merits of doctrine using what we know can be traced back to the apostles themselves rather than engage in mud slinging).

Ok, in that case, quit your mud slinging at “Rome”, and start an investigation on these Apostolic Teachings that are alive and well apart form the Latin Rite.

I simply think doctrine became adulterated through the ages by mistakes in exegesis, which permeated (and became magnified) because of the flawed concept of infallibility; and I am confident that I have an excellent case for that proposition.

Well, there is a hole in your bucket. Whatever “excellent case” you have will have to invalidate all the Apostolic communites I named who all share the same doctrine, never used Latin, and don’t exegete using Western principles.

 

[guanophore]

One pope inspired by the Holy Spirit declares all non-Catholics eternally damned and another pope inspired by the Holy Spirit says they are not. It doesn’t change “Church Doctrine” but it changes belief and teaching.

It changes our understanding of the doctrine. Since JEsus only founded one Church, then it stands to reason that all persons who are saved are members of that One Body, whether that appears visible to us, or not. There would be no way to figure this out sooner, since there were no “protestants”.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4324087]
Originally Posted by ron77nyc
One pope inspired by the Holy Spirit declares all non-Catholics eternally damned and another pope inspired by the Holy Spirit says they are not. It doesn’t change “Church Doctrine” but it changes belief and teaching.

guanophore
It changes our understanding of the doctrine.

What you are saying here is that a previous pope was in error since his understanding of “Church Doctrine” was incorrect and false. The proof for this is that a later pope or council had to correct this.
How could this kind of thing happen if all popes are supposedly guided by the HS?

Since JEsus only founded one Church, then it stands to reason that all persons who are saved are members of that One Body, whether that appears visible to us, or not. There would be no way to figure this out sooner, since there were no “protestants”.

How can you claim there is even one church in catholicism when the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church are not united? These are 2 disctinct churches that claim to be of the apostles.

 

[twb1621]

Hi Tom,

Where can Sacred Tradition be found today and what does it precisely consist of?

Also, on your view do the scriptures and Sacred Tradition always bear an EQUAL authoritative relationship with one another?

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

Post 1 of 3

This is the best explanation I could find in lay terms;

“Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?
It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.
And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…
…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.
Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.
The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).
“But doesn’t that mean that the Church believes in continuing revelation like the Mormons?” No. The Church believes in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred New Revelation. It is of the very essence of Sacred Tradition that it is a thing handed down from the apostles, not a thing fadged up later on. And one of the basic truths of Sacred Tradition is that “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 4). And that is the irony. For this dogma, which is at the heart of the Evangelical concern about ongoing revelation, is virtually invisible in Scripture apart from the common teaching, life and worship of the Church…"
Continued next post.

 

[twb1621]

continued post #2 of 3 from previous post;

“…After all, no verse in Scripture says revelation ends with the death of the apostles. Rather, a few verses (such as Paul’s command to Timothy to guard what has been entrusted to him) can be seen to bear an extremely oblique witness to this teaching in light of Sacred Tradition preserved in the ChurchThis pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!”
In reality, however, Catholics see the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reflected in Scripture in just the same way the Council of Jerusalem saw the Circumcision Exemption reflected in Amos and Evangelicals see the Closure of Public Revelation reflected in Paul’s command to Timothy. The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.
In this context, we discover not explicit, but implicit testimony to the doctrine, while those verses which appear to speak of Jesus’ siblings or Mary’s relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ can easily be understood in a way compatible with her perpetual virginity. We find, for instance, that mention of Jesus “brothers” can mean “cousins” in the first century Jewish milieu. We find that Matthew 1:25 need not necessarily imply anything about Mary’s subsequent sexual relations with Joseph any more than “Michal had no children till the day of her death” implies that Michal had children after her death. We also find Mary-a woman betrothed-is astonished at Gabriel’s proclamation that “You will bear a son.” This is an odd thing for a betrothed woman to be astonished about. After all, a betrothed woman could expect and hope to bear many sons… unless she had already decided to remain a virgin even after marriage. Then she would be astonished at the prophecy.
We find also the New Testament subtly but clearly identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, wherein dwelt the Presence of God. Luke 1:35 speaks of the power of the Most High “overshadowing” Mary just as the Shekinah glory overshadowed the Ark (Numbers 9:15). John does the same thing in Revelation, juxtaposing the Ark (Rev 11:19) with an image of a woman clothed with the sun who gives birth to a “male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” (Rev. 12:5). The connection between Mary and the Ark, once it is made by with the help of Sacred Tradition, is hard not to see. Knowing the identity of Mary’s “male child” it would be an easy mental connection for any pious Jew to immediately think of her as a kind of Second Ark.
Well, one such pious Jew was a certain Joseph of Nazareth who, after his dream (Mt 1:23) did know the identity of Mary’s “male child.” He also knew, as a Jew steeped in the Old Testament, what happens to people who touch the Ark without authorization (2 Sm 6:6-8). So it becomes very psychologically probable that Joseph, knowing what he knew, also would have chosen celibacy in this rather unusual situation. And so, in short, the Sacred Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, like Sacred Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation, turns out to illuminate Scripture in an unexpected and yet satisfying way. Which is why the Church of the sixth century knows and defines (at the Second Council of Constantinople), that Mary is Ever-Virgin even though it is not written explicitly in the New Testament any more than the words “After the apostles die, there will be no new revelation.” For the Second Council of Constantinople, knowing what the Council of Jerusalem knew, acts like the Council of Jerusalem did: operating in light of the apostolic Tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin, the Church reads Scripture accordingly and sees its Tradition reflected there.
In summary then, Sacred Tradition is handed down “both by word of mouth and by letter.” In Scripture, as today, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 10) so that the Bible is part, not the whole, of the apostolic paradosis. In Scripture, as today, the Bible is materially, not formally, sufficient to reveal the fullness of the gospel of Christ…”

continued post #3

 

[twb1621]

post #3 of 3

In Scripture, as today, both written and unwritten Tradition are from Christ and made by him to stand inseparably united like hydrogen and oxygen that fuse to form living water or like the words and tune of a single song. In Scripture, as today, the unwritten aspect of Sacred Tradition is not some separate, secret and parallel revelation, but the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the whole Church. In Scripture, as today, this Tradition grows like the mustard seed and, as a result, gets more mustardy, not less. In Scripture, as today, the Church in council sits on the judge’s bench and listens to the testimony of Scripture in light of its Tradition in order to discern how best to define that Tradition more precisely.
And all this is because, in Scripture, as today, the Tradition, both written and unwritten, comes to us through the Body of Him Who is Truth: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Paul calls “the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” and the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (Eph 1:22; 1 Tm 3:15). For in Scripture, as today, Sacred Tradition-the common apostolic teaching, life and worship handed down to us in written and unwritten form-and the magisterial authority of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are as inseparably united as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

author, Mark P. Shea
mark-shea.com/tradition_f.html

All three must be together, First Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, then Magisterial teaching comes last in the proper order.

 

[twb1621]

What you are saying here is that a previous pope was in error since his understanding of “Church Doctrine” was incorrect and false. The proof for this is that a later pope or council had to correct this.
How could this kind of thing happen if all popes are supposedly guided by the HS? The Pope was not in error. No statement was made regarding those who had no knowledge of living or commiting serious sin.

How can you claim there is even one church in catholicism when the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church are not united? These are 2 disctinct churches that claim to be of the apostles.

In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope" This tells us that the Eastern Orth. broke away from the Catholic Church into their own denomination. (The Catholic Church always had a Pope, who was always the Bishop of Rome. EO had no Pope after this split involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism.

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450.

 

[twb1621]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ron77nyc
One pope inspired by the Holy Spirit declares all non-Catholics eternally damned and another pope inspired by the Holy Spirit says they are not. It doesn’t change “Church Doctrine” but it changes belief and teaching.

I see what you’re saying. Well the first was responding to a particular situation involving the king at that time but in this sense it was not spelled out that in order for a person to commit and live in a state of mortal sin, they must have the knowledge it is a mortal sin they are committing. This is a recognized fact in the Church. This includes those who are not living the Catholic Faith and have no knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic Faith. In the sense this pope declared those outside the Church without the possibility of salvation, it would refer particularly to those who left or would leave the Catholic Church with the knowledge of the faith. It is correct in that circumstance and I believe there were Bible verses referred to back that up. As scripture says, more is expected of those who have more and this refers to those blessed with the gifts of the Church Jesus founded. More is expected of Catholics because more is offered to us in the way of teachings and the sacraments. The Catholic Church must stand for who it represents.

 

[guanophore]

When the pope proclaimed that Mary was immaculate conceived and never sinned he denied Romans 5:12 as being true. He also violated I John 1:8;10.

Clearly this is your private interpretation of the prophesy of God. Now that you have established this, is there any more reason for you to remain on CAF?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I can see this thread is getting choppy … how about them Giants?

5 and 1 babe, hooha!!!

 

[guanophore]

There is not one shred of evidence for this claim. The Scriptures never mention the birth of Mary. So to claim she was somehow “protected from original sin” is to speculate without any facts.

There are so many errors in this post. One is that there “is no shred of evidence”. Your refusal to accept the evidence does not make it invalid or “nonexistent”.

Second,the idea that the Scriptures make no mention of the birth of Mary does not invalidate her birth, or the state she was in when it happened.

Third, the notion that something which does not appear in scripture “is to speculate without any facts” is hogwash.

According to that conclusion, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of scripture itself would have no authentic basis.

 

[guanophore]

This is an absolute.

You say this, then you recognize otherwise?

Even the “exceptions” you mentioned were not spared the sin of Adam.

All of us are spared the sin of Adam, unless we choose to partiicipate in it. What we are not spared are the consequences of his sin, which is death.

We know more about Elijah and he never makes any claim to being sinless. The only true exceptions would Adam and Eve who were a special creation of God and the Lord Jesus. All other men and women are conceived via normal human conception processes.

The consequence of Adam’s sin is death. Elijah and Enoch did not “die” but were taken up (just as Mary was). Moses died, but his body was recovered, and he now lives in his heavenly reward.

 

[guanophore]

You say that the Catholic Church received her teachings from the Apostles and that this teaching was preserved by the Fathers.

Yes.

Are you claiming that this teaching was infallibly preserved?

yes

If so, how did this process operate and where is the credible evidence for it?

I really dont think you can accept any of the “credible evidence”. If you reject Scripture, which we both agree is the inspired inerrant Word of God, then what else would hold a candle?

 

[guanophore]

the scriptures must be properly interpreted, according to the rules of sound exegesis.

And who establishes 'the rules"?

Futhermore, when I have stated that the inerrant scriptures are self-authenticating I simply mean to convey that the inherent, objective meaning is in the scriptures themselves. The meaning has to be exegeted from scripture; the meaning is not yielded by any “flat reading of the text”. I am not a Fundamentalist in the pejorative sense of that term.

The term self-authenticating only means that no other sources of theology can stand BESIDE scipture. The scriptures stand OVER sacred tradition. However, the inherent, objective meaning of scripture is derived through faithful exegesis.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

It does. What you are saying is that you basically have no NT, since the contents and canonization of it come entirely from extra biblical sources.

You are also saying that the rational efforts of man stand above God’s revelation as a source of knowledge.

 

[sola_scriptura]

According to that conclusion, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the canon of scripture itself would have no authentic basis.

But these sound doctrines enjoy a basis in scripture and known Apostolic tradition, Marian dogma doesn’t.

I’ll give you an example. Clement made a statement in one of his letters referencing the virgin birth. Origen and Irenaeus totally misconstrued the statement and it flourished into the idea of perpetual virginity. Tertullian disagreed with them.

The key point is even back as early as the second and third centuries the church did not know for sure. The protoevangelium of James is clearly a forgery (it could not have been written by a James from Jerusalem since it’s author was clearly not a Jew familiar with Second Temple Judaism). Hence we have nothing confirming Catholic Marian dogma.

So the fact is you cannot argue an uninterrupted continuum of knowledge handed down from the apostles. It is a fallacy and any serious Catholic theologian would have to admit this if pressed.

It wasn’t even until the 19th century that the church came up with the idea of Papal infallibility. Just to state the obvious if this was an apostolic teaching then why wait 1,900 years to adopt it? Was the RCC wrong up until 1870? I"m sorry but some of these things just strain logic and make my brain twist.

These doctrines are all derived from exegesis. I’m not sure why people have such a hard time understanding or accepting this?