Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[guanophore]

I am not convinced. I shall elabourate when I am at a computer.

It seems unlikely that you could make this post otherwise.

However, I look forward to your elaboration.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We have been here many times before. Mary could not be without sin because of he own admission of her stating, “my God and my Saviour.”

If you’ve been over that territory many times before, you know the Catholic refutation to that argument. You and I are saved after experiencing sin, through Christ’s blood. Mary was saved from ever having to experiencing sin, through Christ’s blood. That is our belief. Thus the verse does not refute Catholic doctrine.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that she couldn’t have been without sin because of this in Scripture.

Perhaps this is so. There is a lot of debate going on right now over his position on the Immaculate Conception. Books have been written vindicating him . . . but you may be right. I don’t know enough to say. I do know that the belief in the Immaculate Conception was an Early Church tradition dating back to the origins of Christianity. It is easy to find in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is also implicit in scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments.

SIA:

And again, Scripture never says anything about her being assumed into Heaven body and spirit, nothing.

Revelation 12:14 describes the Assumption, and there are multiple prophetic references to it in the Old Testament. There also are references among the Early Church Fathers. It’s a well supported dogma.

SIA:

And we could get into the whole debate about Jesus’ brothers and sisters here by why when there are other threads to deal with that. Anyhow, much in the Bible speaks to Mary not being perpetually virgin. There is nothing there to make us assume that she didn’t have a normal marriage with her husband.

Actually, there is. Two scripture passages don’t make much sense if Mary had sexual relations with Joseph and children other than Jesus. One is the scene at the cross, where Jesus gives her into the care of John. If she had multiple children already, she would have been well provided for.

The other passage is in the Annunciation scene in Luke. The scripture says that when the angel says she will give birth to a child, she says, “how can this be? For I am a virgin?” Yet before the conversation had begun, Luke said she was betrothed to Joseph. Therefore her question makes no sense. The obvious assumption Mary would make, if she expected to ever have sexual relations with Joseph (which she would expect, if her betrothal was of a kind that led to sexual intercourse within marriage), would be that this child would be hers and Joseph’s. After all, she was betrothed!

Instead, she asks, “how can this be, for I am a virgin?” It’s not like the angel said, “You shall give birth to a son before you have sex with Joseph.” So that passage becomes an enigma if we reject the Early Church Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

And the passage in John becomes puzzling too, if that early tradition is rejected.

On the other hand, the references to brothers and sisters aren’t very hard to explain in view of Biblical language. There are repeated references in the Old Testament where close friends or non-brethren relatives are referred to as brothers. Abraham refers to Lot as a brother, for instance, though he wasn’t. And there are many other cases.

SIA:

There is nothing sinful abut having sex with your spouse.

Unless you are already intimate with someone else. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

SIA:

And then all of the titles given to Mary by the RCC do contradict Scripture. They raise her to the level of divinity with Christ.

No they don’t . None of us say she is divine. She is raised up as heavenly queen, though. Elizabeth’s reference to her as “mother of my Lord,” is an Eastern form of address to a queen. Gabriel’s call to her, “Hail!” also is a word only used in that time period to address a queen. So the New Testament itself confirms our position on this in clear language. The Old Testament also predicts it, though, for it says that the Messiah would “reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom.” Therefore we’d expect that the Messiah’s kingdom would be designed as the kingdom of David.

The kingdom of David had a role of Queen Mother who had immense authority and fulfilled most of the roles we attribute to Mary. Here’s how Solomon, a Biblical type of Christ, treats his mother:
1 Kings 2:19:

So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right.

And when she made an unspecified request for a favor, he said, “Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.” That reveals her power of intercession, as does the incident with the Virgin Mary calling Jesus to produce his first miracle at the wine in Cana. There’s a lot in the Bible about Mary’s role.

SIA:

Jesus said that nobody enters onto the Father except through me, yet Catholicism calls Mary co-redemptrix. Not possible.

Her role as co-redemptrix is based on the Annunciation scene described in Luke. When she chose to believe Gabriel in faith and thus through faith gave birth to the Son, she made possible, through her faith, the possibility of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Thus her faith makes her co-redemptrix. This doctrine is logical necessity stemming from her faith as described in Luke.

This doesn’t negate Jesus’ claim that no one enters the Father except through him. We believe that anyone who goes through Mary goes through Jesus, for she directs them to Jesus and helps them through him.

You may not believe in this, but the logic works.

 

[guanophore]

Why don’t we all just stop right now and pray for each other.

Let us not say we will pray for each other (either as some condescending, self-righteous remark, or as a procrastinated promise).

I mean it.

STOP RIGHT NOW!

AND

PRAY! PRAY! PRAY!

Not before you go to bed tonight…now! Even if briefly!

We all need to!

For all at CAF, and those outside, I join my prayer to that of Paul:

Eph 1:15-23

I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, and for this reason 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you as I remember you in my prayers. 17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, 18 so that, with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power. 20 God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. 22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

Amen.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

SIA, will you join in this prayer, with me?

Lord God, my Jesus, if I am in error, please free me from it. If the one I am debating with is in error, please free him from it. Free us, Lord, from all falsehood. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

That’s my prayer for us.

 

[adstrinity]

guanophore, et al, my phone, which I am using now, only allows me 512 characters. Quotes use up so much and a 12 pad key pad is not terribly convienient.

 

[guanophore]

this is one reason why Christ founded His Church in the first place to teach the Holy Scriptures for the Holy Ghost is with the Roman Catholic Church (Acts 20, 28).

I commend you that you are proud of your faith, and I affirm that you have remained with the Spirit of Truth. However, the Holy Spirit is with the Catholic Church, and that includes also the 22 Rites that are in communion with the bishop of Rome, but do not follow the Latin (Roman) Rite.

do not all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5).

Yes, and I commend you for an excellent defence of the faith.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore, et al, my phone, which I am using now, only allows me 512 characters. Quotes use up so much and a 12 pad key pad is not terribly convienient.

Just teasing you! the modern phones, that incorporate computers, are still deficient. My company tried to sell me a phone with a qwerty keyboard, and I took it back… I could not abide it.

I look forward to your more convenient reply.

 

[RobHom]

Lord God, my Jesus, if I am in error, please free me from it. If the one I am debating with is in error, please free him from it. Free us, Lord, from all falsehood. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.

That’s my prayer for us.

Amen, and Thank You!

 

[adstrinity]

Note to self: Pg 20 in, ‘Understanding the Latin Mass.’ I have found a VERY sufficient answer for my own question. I can’t wait to share it!

 

[Lilyflower]

The Scriptures do not teach Sola Scriptura, in fact if you read it carefully the Scripture speaks about Tradition as well:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (II Thess. II, XIV)

SIZE]

Amen

Blessings and peace

 

[guanophore]

I think it has more to do with our vast limitations to understand who God is.

This is absolutely a most valid point.

But, scripture was never intended to contain everything, or to have complete clarity. That is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority to be the custodian of His message.

 

[Reformed]

This is absolutely a most valid point.

But, scripture was never intended to contain everything, or to have complete clarity. That is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority to be the custodian of His message.

What happens when the teaching authority teaches doctrine that contradicts Holy Scripture? Do you follow the teaching authority or Holy Scripture at that crossroad if the doctrines in questions are essential doctrines to the Faith? When a teaching authority has more power than Holy Scriptures to determine truth, that particular institution turns into a cult (Mormons, etc).

 

[MDK]

Pray for yourself as will I.

SIA,
Please pray for me too. As men who seek to follow Christ, we recognized that our common enemies are Satan and evil spirits who know and yet oppose God. They are the ones who can do us damage if we let them. We need to pray for each other that we all become stronger in Christ and with His love, mercy, forgiveness, healing and grace, we can continue to strengthen our brethren so that we can be one in Christ and fight in a unified way against His enemies, which as adopted Sons are also our enemies.

 

[guanophore]

What happens when the teaching authority teaches doctrine that contradicts Holy Scripture?

The teacher is out of order, and needs to be corrected, or removed.

Do you follow the teaching authority or Holy Scripture at that crossroad if the doctrines in questions are essential doctrines to the Faith?

No such crossroad exists with the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

When a teaching authority has more power than Holy Scriptures to determine truth, that particular institution turns into a cult (Mormons, etc).

The teaching authority appointed by Christ has the authority to determine the truth. This is why Jesus appointed them, so that they could preserve what He taught. The Scriptures themselves do not “determine truth”. this requires discernment, which requires intellect and will, qualities that the scriptures do not have.

The teaching authority appointed by Christ produced the New Testament. They had the authority to do this because He gave it to them. This does not turn Christianity into a “cult” as you have been erroneously informed.

 

[dawid]

What happens when the teaching authority teaches doctrine that contradicts Holy Scripture? Do you follow the teaching authority or Holy Scripture at that crossroad if the doctrines in questions are essential doctrines to the Faith? When a teaching authority has more power than Holy Scriptures to determine truth, that particular institution turns into a cult (Mormons, etc).

Doctrine may be complementary, but not contrary to the Scriptures.

If each us holds a differing opinion on Scripture, who is correct?

That is where the role of the Magisterium is significant - there is a need for authority inspired by the holy Spirit.

 

[Lilyflower]

What happens when the teaching authority teaches doctrine that contradicts Holy Scripture? Do you follow the teaching authority or Holy Scripture at that crossroad if the doctrines in questions are essential doctrines to the Faith? When a teaching authority has more power than Holy Scriptures to determine truth, that particular institution turns into a cult (Mormons, etc).

The arguement assumes there is ‘only one interpretation’ of Sacred Scripure. But we know that there are at least 30,000-different interpretations. Which one [or one’s] are the correct one?

Therefore, one criticizes ‘the teaching authority!’

That then raises the question: 'How many teaching authorities are there, that is ‘how many are authentic and how many are pretenders?’

I suggest there are only two: Orthodox and Catholic. But that is to deny the many eminent researchers in universities around the world whose knowledge and understanding far surpasses that of ordinary Christian’s.

You could criticize Rome for saying the world and the universe are flat. We know the world is round but science tells us the universe is indeed flat. So Rome was only 50% wrong and Gallilao only 50% right. Yet Rome has been laughed to scorn over this

It is a difficult question. I am not sure there is any definitive answer.

Blessings and peace

 

[agnostic]

As was clarified for me on another thread, what I don’t get is, if sola scriptura is all there is, and all that is needed, then how did people manage before everyone had access to the Scriptures.

Wouldn’t they have been taught by the priests and teachers?

And another question comes to mind - the catholic church has priests and bishops and so on, as I understand it, all charged with defending and promoting the catholic faith? Correct?

But the people that believe in sola scriptura ALSO have priests and teaches and the like, am I correct here? Well if I am, the question is why, since all they need is the Scriptures.

Seems like if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then all that’s gotta happen is your folks give you a Bible when you’re 21 and off you go - so why do I see so many non-catholic preachers, feeling the need to preach and offer up their interpretation of the scripture when they dint need to - it’s all there in the Book, just read it and believe it and shabang - you’re saved

So if the non catholic folks nned to have Scripture explained to them, then doesn’t that mean that Sola Scriptura is NOT enough, as you need teachers as well. And if you need teachers, and if there were teachers long before there was a written Bible, then doesn’t that by default mean what they were handing down was Tradition in terms of beliefs and practices along with explainations of the Scriptural contents.

And if thats correct, then it seems to me that Sola Scriptura is NOT enough.

I’m trying to work through this - help me with the flaws in my logic

 

[guanophore]

As was clarified for me on another thread, what I don’t get is, if sola scriptura is all there is, and all that is needed, then how did people manage before everyone had access to the Scriptures.

Wouldn’t they have been taught by the priests and teachers?

And another question comes to mind - the catholic church has priests and bishops and so on, as I understand it, all charged with defending and promoting the catholic faith? Correct?

But the people that believe in sola scriptura ALSO have priests and teaches and the like, am I correct here? Well if I am, the question is why, since all they need is the Scriptures.

Seems like if you believe in Sola Scriptura, then all that’s gotta happen is your folks give you a Bible when you’re 21 and off you go - so why do I see so many non-catholic preachers, feeling the need to preach and offer up their interpretation of the scripture when they dint need to - it’s all there in the Book, just read it and believe it and shabang - you’re saved

So if the non catholic folks nned to have Scripture explained to them, then doesn’t that mean that Sola Scriptura is NOT enough, as you need teachers as well. And if you need teachers, and if there were teachers long before there was a written Bible, then doesn’t that by default mean what they were handing down was Tradition in terms of beliefs and practices along with explainations of the Scriptural contents.

And if thats correct, then it seems to me that Sola Scriptura is NOT enough.

I’m trying to work through this - help me with the flaws in my logic

For the vast majority of adherants to SS, they do not believe that it is “all that is needed” They affirm that teachers and pastors are also necessary. However, if there is a dispute, the Scripture is the final and highest authority in matters of faith and doctrine, not the pastors and teachers.

 

[agnostic]

For the vast majority of adherants to SS, they do not believe that it is “all that is needed” They affirm that teachers and pastors are also necessary. However, if there is a dispute, the Scripture is the final and highest authority in matters of faith and doctrine, not the pastors and teachers.

Thank you for that. I understand better now.

 

[adstrinity]

Do you not think Jesus knew which books He wanted in the NT?

What do you think He meant when He said:

John 16:13-14
" When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

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.