Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[guanophore]

Does infallibility apply to the teachings of Christ and His apostles as recorded in the NT?

Infallibilty is the state in which the inspired-inerrant writings were created. This state, in which the HS works through fallible men to create an infallibe product, was at work creating the NT. It is also at work in the councils of the Church, and the present day teaching of the Magesterium.

 

[cfrancis]

The Bible. The OT predates the church as do the oral teachings of Christ.

Interesting and honest: oral teachings, as you seem to realize, do not equal NT.

Of course, the question wasn’t, “which came first, the writings that would eventually be included in the canon of Scripture or the Church?” as I’m certain you are aware.

Perhaps a more revealing question would be: how do you the Gospel of Matthew actually are the teachings of Jesus?

 

[guanophore]

Where did the Lord Jesus do this? Where did He tell Peter that he would be incapable of error?

Matt 16:17-19
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

It is not possible to have “error” in heaven, so whenever the successor of Peter binds that which shall be bound in heaven, it is infallible.

Teaching error is results in passing through the gates of hell.

 

[Cinette]

The Bible. The OT predates the church as do the oral teachings of Christ.

Of course I was not referring the the OT - we all know that it existed before the Christian Church. So for your benefit I shall rephrase my question:

Which came first, the New Testement or the Church?

In your answer kindly explain why you might believe it to be the NT and give evidence of who wrote and compiled the NT and any other evidence you might have to qualify your response.

Thank you

 

[guanophore]

Where did Jesus promise this to the church i.e. indefectibility?

John 16:12-15

12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus is “all Truth”, and when the Spirit guies us to Him, there are no defects.

John 14:18-19

18 "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. "

If Jesus did not keep HIs promises,then He is a liar or a weakling.

 

[justasking4]

Interesting and honest: oral teachings, as you seem to realize, do not equal NT.

Of course, the question wasn’t, “which came first, the writings that would eventually be included in the canon of Scripture or the Church?” as I’m certain you are aware.

Perhaps a more revealing question would be: how do you the Gospel of Matthew actually are the teachings of Jesus?

This same question could be asked of any historical document of the past. We trust the people who have studied the issue that their conclusions are true. We don’t if there is counter evidence that is more compelling.
Primarily i trust the Gospel of Matthew are actually the teachings of Jesus because i first believe in the God that created the universe Who has power beyond our imaginations and could could communicate with mankind if He so chose to. I think the 4 gospels are in reality what they claim to be: the history of the Creator living among us.

 

[justasking4]

Cinette;4295078]Of course I was not referring the the OT - we all know that it existed before the Christian Church. So for your benefit I shall rephrase my question:

Which came first, the New Testement or the Church?
The church in conjunction with the teachings of the apostles which was done orally and in writing.

In your answer kindly explain why you might believe it to be the NT and give evidence of who wrote and compiled the NT and any other evidence you might have to qualify your response.

Thank you

 

[cfrancis]

This same question could be asked of any historical document of the past. We trust the people who have studied the issue that their conclusions are true. We don’t if there is counter evidence that is more compelling.
Primarily i trust the Gospel of Matthew are actually the teachings of Jesus because i first believe in the God that created the universe Who has power beyond our imaginations and could could communicate with mankind if He so chose to. I think the 4 gospels are in reality what they claim to be: the history of the Creator living among us.

And why, for example, isn’t the Gospel of Peter and Paul, or the Gospel of Mary, Jesus’ teachings?
So far, I have no problem with your answer, but it certainly isn’t Biblical proof, and it isn’t universal. Can a Christian choose to not accept the canon of Scripture, and believe, for example, the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, or the Gospel of Thomas is Scripture, too?

 

[justasking4]

So when you hear someone say “Bible”, you think only of the Old Testament?

This is the question that was asked:
“1. Which came first: the Bible or the Catholic Church?”

In this case it would be correct to say the OT. Today we would say OT+NT=Bible.

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4295163]And why, for example, isn’t the Gospel of Peter and Paul, or the Gospel of Mary, Jesus’ teachings?

Primarily these so called “gospels” failed the apostolic test of either being written by an apostle or one associated with one.

So far, I have no problem with your answer, but it certainly isn’t Biblical proof, and it isn’t universal. Can a Christian choose to not accept the canon of Scripture, and believe, for example, the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, or the Gospel of Thomas is Scripture, too?

They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture. The reason we don’t accept these works is similar to my response above. In this case there are other reasons to reject them.

 

[cfrancis]

Primarily these so called “gospels” failed the apostolic test of either being written by an apostle or one associated with one.

They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture. The reason we don’t accept these works is similar to my response above. In this case there are other reasons to reject them.

In both of these answers, you have not provided Biblical evidence; you have, it appears, relied on tradition.
Where do we read in the Bible of the necessity of Scripture being written by an Apostle, or someone associated with one?
For that matter, where in the Bible dowe read Matthew or Mark (or someone associated with them) wrote those gospels?
As for your “They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture” how do you prove 1 Cor or the Gospel of Luke are Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

If you look at the context for these passages they are not to any church but to the immediate disciples.

News flash, ja4. It was upon those “immediate disciples” that Jesus built His One Church.

It was to them that He pormised. What Jesus does pray for is the message He does give to His immediate disciples would be believed by those in the future. The message is not change but to be preached and taught that others would also believe in this same message. Its not about all other kinds of doctrines and teachings that churches will teach that cannot be grounded in the Scriptures.

You will note that none of what Jesus taught them, or gave them to preach was “grounded in the Scriptures”. On the contrary, it was all grounded in Himself.

John 5:39-40
" You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

The scriptures do testify of Him, but the Teachings were whole and entire before a word of the NT was written.

I agree that " Its not about all other kinds of doctrines and teachings that churches will teach ". It is only about the doctrines that will be taught by those to whom He made the promise.

 

[guanophore]

Not true. Now we have the written inspired-inerrant Word of God to guide us. We need men and women to know it well and to teach it well so those that follow Christ will be well grounded in Christ…

Jesus did not appoint the Scripture to shepherd the Church. He appointed Peter, the Apostles in union with him, and their successors.

Scripture is profitable for this, but scripture cannot “shepherd” without an authorized person available to apply it’s contents.

 

[pismopal]

When you want to be a Christian but you refuse to go to the Church founded by Christ ( and preserved by Christ through His promise), you must rely on the Bible alone because you don’t have a Church and you don’t have a teaching authority. If your gathering doesn’t have a teaching authority, you have chaos and schism and every man and woman is their own church leader. It is not a pretty situation but there it is.

 

[guanophore]

:tsktsk: RED HERRING ALERT:tsktsk:

This is a favorite rock to throw to “prove” that the gift of infallibility does not exist. To be fair, ja4 suffers a deficient view of the Church, and only recognizes the fallible persons in the earthly body as members. He (they) do not understand the divine components of the Church, the church suffering, or the Church triumphant.

 

[justasking4]

When you want to be a Christian but you refuse to go to the Church founded by Christ ( and preserved by Christ through His promise), you must rely on the Bible alone because you don’t have a Church and you don’t have a teaching authority. If your gathering doesn’t have a teaching authority, you have chaos and schism and every man and woman is their own church leader. It is not a pretty situation but there it is.

Which church is the church that Christ founded: the The Eastern Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church?

 

[cfrancis]

Primarily these so called “gospels” failed the apostolic test of either being written by an apostle or one associated with one.

They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture. The reason we don’t accept these works is similar to my response above. In this case there are other reasons to reject them.

In both of these answers, you have not provided Biblical evidence; you have, it appears, relied on tradition.
Where do we read in the Bible of the necessity of Scripture being written by an Apostle, or someone associated with one?
For that matter, where in the Bible dowe read Matthew or Mark (or someone associated with them) wrote those gospels?
As for your “They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture” how do you prove 1 Cor or the Gospel of Luke are Scripture?

bump

 

[justasking4]

This is a favorite rock to throw to “prove” that the gift of infallibility does not exist. To be fair, ja4 suffers a deficient view of the Church, and only recognizes the fallible persons in the earthly body as members. He (they) do not understand the divine components of the Church, the church suffering, or the Church triumphant.

:bowdown:

 

[Cinette]

The church in conjunction with the teachings of the apostles which was done orally and in writing.

Very good 9 out of 10 (you forgot to put the capital C in Church).

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4295206]In both of these answers, you have not provided Biblical evidence; you have, it appears, relied on tradition.

The biblical evidence would be the nature of the writings themselves as being inspired-inerrant. Secondly, there is no problem using a “tradition” if it is true.

Where do we read in the Bible of the necessity of Scripture being written by an Apostle, or someone associated with one?

Many of the letters of the NT would apply.

For that matter, where in the Bible dowe read Matthew or Mark (or someone associated with them) wrote those gospels?

We don’t. John would be one canidate though.

As for your “They can believe that but they could never demonstate and prove that they are indeed Scripture” how do you prove 1 Cor or the Gospel of Luke are Scripture?

By being associated with an apostle, were the writings accepted by the people of God, do the writings tell the truth about God are just some of the ways we could show these books are Scripture.