Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[guanophore]

I know the definition of infallibility. I’ve read it many times. I would like someone, anyone to tell me exactly what are the infallible teachings of the Church.

One of them is that the Church is the Bride of Christ.

Eph 5:25-30
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,

He loves her, and nourishes her, and she is without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. It is Christ, who dies for her, and washed her, that makes her this way. When we come into union with the Church, we can enter this purity. This is why it is not right to ascribe to the Church the sins of the fallen members who have wounded her purity. The Church is much bigger than the collection of sinful men on earth who are joined to her.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Sola Scriptura is a contradiction to what you claim.

The New and Old Testament are both products of sacred Tradition, sometimes being commited to the Bible many years after the events.

I have no idea what you mean by “SS is a contradiction to what you claim”.

Anyway, how does what you say about the NT and OT dis-prove SS?

 

[dawid]

I have no idea what you mean by “SS is a contradiction to what you claim”.

Anyway, how does what you say about the NT and OT dis-prove SS?

SS implies that Scripture is the only source of Truth.

The source of Scripture is sacred Tradition in both the OT and NT.

I don’t think anyone makes the claim, or at least they shouldn’t, that sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed.

If sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed, it would be verification that sacred Tradition is valid.

If sacred Tradition can become Scripture, then SS would be invalid as the two are not mutually exclusive - to claim that, would be a contradiction.

 

[Pwrlftr]

SS implies that Scripture is the only source of Truth.

Not exactly. Scripture is the final authority.

The source of Scripture is sacred Tradition in both the OT and NT.

If sola scriptura was operative during the time the scriptures were being developed, it would be verification that sacred Tradition is valid.

SS was not operative during the time of enscripturation. How could it be?

If sacred Tradition can become Scripture, then SS would be invalid as the two are not mutually exclusive - to claim that, would be a contradiction.

You need to define what “tradition” is.

Nonetheless, we are left with accepting what is written down for us in scripture alone or adding to scripture what your church defines as being sacred tradition. Your church defines what is and what isn’t part of tradition regardless of any historical proof.

I would rather trust the scriptures alone.

 

[dawid]

Not exactly. Scripture is the final authority.

SS was not operative during the time of enscripturation. How could it be?

You need to define what “tradition” is.

Nonetheless, we are left with accepting what is written down for us in scripture alone or adding to scripture what your church defines as being sacred tradition. Your church defines what is and what isn’t part of tradition regardless of any historical proof.

I would rather trust the scriptures alone.

Sacred Scripture positions itself as a part—albeit a very important part—of a much bigger picture: Sacred Tradition. At the end of his Gospel, John tells us that not everything taught by Christ was written down: “There are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

The things Paul taught orally he considered Sacred Tradition: “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13–14). Then he elaborates further, “And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul describes—in Sacred Scripture—exactly how Sacred Tradition is passed on: by hearing—in another word, orally.

At another time, Paul writes that Sacred Tradition may be handed on orally or by writing. “To this he called you through our Gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:14–15).

Tradition means a handing down of beliefs, etc.

Sacred Tradition in turn means the handing down of divine revelation from one generation of believers to the next, as preserved under the divine guidance of the Catholic Church established by Christ.

The NT, when subjected to rigorous assessment by biblical historians, withstood critics’ claims.

As the NT is a product of sacred Tradition, it illustrates the integrity of that tradition.

 

[distracted]

That is one of the problems/issues I see with infallibility.

How do you know, using your fallble judgement, when something is defined as infallible?

?

question was not addressed to me but i’ll answer…

maybe we don’t really, absolutely speaking, KNOW… but there are a lot of things we don’t and never will know (in this life) about God… and God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know about HIm… He did give us all a conscience… so it doesn’t really matter much if we can prove every little detail about waht we believe (to someone else’s satisfaction). What matters is doing right… and we all know what is right and wrong in most situations… Of course, when we do not (when there is controversy about some topic… such as stem cell research… etc)… we have a church to guide us… God knew we would not be able to find absolute truth about this or that… so he provided us with a Church… run by Christ in Heaven… trhough men…

In the bible, Paul says to “be imitators of me”…

 

[Pwrlftr]

question was not addressed to me but i’ll answer…

maybe we don’t really, absolutely speaking, KNOW… but there are a lot of things we don’t and never will know (in this life) about God… and God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know about HIm… He did give us all a conscience… so it doesn’t really matter much if we can prove every little detail about waht we believe (to someone else’s satisfaction). What matters is doing right… and we all know what is right and wrong in most situations… Of course, when we do not (when there is controversy about some topic… such as stem cell research… etc)… we have a church to guide us… God knew we would not be able to find absolute truth about this or that… so he provided us with a Church… run by Christ in Heaven… trhough men…

In the bible, Paul says to “be imitators of me”…

Thanks distracted.

 

[distracted]

The Church in this verse does mean the Roman Catholic Church. Does it say Roman Catholic Church in that verse? If there is only one church, why does Revelation speak of the seven churches? ”

well, there are far more than 7 these days… there is St. Joseph’s, St. Michaels, St. Mary Magdelen, St. Anthony’s, St. Francis, St. Francis deSales…

and that’s just in one city…

 

[Pwrlftr]

Tradition means a handing down of beliefs, etc.

Thanks for your response.

I do not believe that there is a seperate body of “traditions” that exist outside of scripture but are equal to scripture.

I agree that Paul asks the Thessalonian church to follow whatever traditions he handed down to them but I do not believe that these traditions include some of what your church places in the category of “sacred tradition”.

 

[distracted]

Thanks distracted.

you are just saying Thanks…

hmmm… So you agree with that… and find that a sufficient answer?? Or are you just saying thanks for my “opinion”… ?

 

[distracted]

Augustine was a Calvinist even before John Calvin was born.

so since John Calvin believed waht a Catholic believed, he was a Catholic…

 

[distracted]

In answer to the original Title of this Thread:

If you believe that sola scriptura is absolutely biblical…

You do not know the Scriptures… (much less all the things God wants you to know that are NOT in Scirpture).

 

[guanophore]

Not exactly. Scripture is the final authority.

No.

SS was not operative during the time of enscripturation. How could it be?

Exactly. This is why we say it is not valid. It was not taught or used by Jesus or His disciples.

You need to define what "tradition" is.

Actually, we know what it means. Perhaps you are speaking of your own need?

Nonetheless, we are left with accepting what is written down for us in scripture alone or adding to scripture what your church defines as being sacred tradition. Your church defines what is and what isn’t part of tradition regardless of any historical proof.

There are a number of problems with this statement.

One is not “left with” a truncated version of Christianity unless one chooses to limit oneself.

What is written down in scripture IS what the church defined as inspired-inerrant. This is what Sacred Tradition is - the inspired-inerrant teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. It was never meant to be limited to the writings.

Scripture is a reflection of the teachings of Jesus, not tje sum total of them.

There is plenty of historical proof for Sacred Tradition, whether you accept it or not. Even so, the revelation of God is not dependent upon historical proof. There is no “proof” that an actual historical Jesus existed, either, but we accept this as an article of faith.

I would rather trust the scriptures alone.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can reject the gospel of Christ, in part, or the whole. This is part of how He made us in the image and likeness of himself - so that we could choose.

 

[Pwrlftr]

No.

Yes.

Exactly. This is why we say it is not valid. It was not taught or used by Jesus or His disciples.

Many things your church now believes weren’t taught by Jesus or the disciples…yet your church makes them dogma.

Actually, we know what it means. Perhaps you are speaking of your own need?

Not one catholic has really nailed down exactly what the nebulous “tradition” is or consists of. I doubt you know either.

There are a number of problems with this statement.

One is not “left with” a truncated version of Christianity unless one chooses to limit oneself.

Of course I could opt for the Christianity “plus” that you have.

What is written down in scripture IS what the church defined as inspired-inerrant. This is what Sacred Tradition is - the inspired-inerrant teaching of Jesus through the Apostles. It was never meant to be limited to the writings.

So says your church.

Scripture is a reflection of the teachings of Jesus, not tje sum total of them.

So you think there are some traditions your church has defined as dogma that aren’t found in scripture? I assume you subscribe to a partim-partim view of tradition…some things in scripture and some in tradition.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can reject the gospel of Christ, in part, or the whole. This is part of how He made us in the image and likeness of himself - so that we could choose.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can add to the gospel of Christ.

 

[distracted]

I am slipping this in here since no one seems to like to post to my threads:

For those who adhere to Sola Scripture (or anyone), please explain the beginning of the Gospel according to Saint Luke:
**
(Chapter 1: Verses 1 - 4)**
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

My question:
What did Luke use for sole authority in his faith?

i guess he was like those Mormons… he just had a “burning in the bosom”

 

[RobHom]

Yes.

No.

Many things your church now believes weren’t taught by Jesus or the disciples…yet your church makes them dogma.

This is because we accept the fact that there is more to God and His word than is contained within the Bible. If you deny the writings of the Early Church Fathers…you might try to get away with that claim. However, interestingly enough it would seem that some who embrace “sola’s” will also quote the ECF’s as justifications… And apparently can’t recognize the error in doing so. In fact its not only error, but hypocrisy as well.

Not one catholic has really nailed down exactly what the nebulous “tradition” is or consists of. I doubt you know either.

There is no specific “laundry list”, but here is a link to some of that information. newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm There are sub-links on the page as well. Also if you go to www.newadvent.org and use the search words “Catholic Traditions Teachings” you will get a large number of pages and articles to read that will explain it to you.

Of course I could opt for the Christianity “plus” that you have.

And you would have a fuller knowledge of the “truth”.

So says your church.

Yep.

So you think there are some traditions your church has defined as dogma that aren’t found in scripture? I assume you subscribe to a partim-partim view of tradition…some things in scripture and some in tradition.

To deny “tradition” is to deny scriptures. The Apostles tell us to hold fast to traditions:

*2 Thessalonians 2 Found 3

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.*

*1 Corinthians 15 Found 2

2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.*

Do you think that every word spoken by Christ and the Apostles was recorded? Even the Bible clearly says not.

This is your perogative, of course. Anyone can add to the gospel of Christ.

As many have done outside the Catholic Church since the 16th Century…but they have taken away from the gospels and changed the wording…

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

By what standard do you doubt the truth and how do you measure your relative truth?

You know if you read Acts you will see a pure and beautiful believing society emerge. The 11 Apostles had accompanied Jesus and had experienced first hand his teachings, his miracles and his sacrifice. Peter, who was flawed was chosen and transformed at Pentecost. The Apostles were probably illeterate and yet managed to spread the message of the gospels throughout the world. They did not use intellectual arguments - it was their WITNESS. Furthermore every Pope of the first 300 years died martyrs - this was further witness that convinced many of the truth. The Early Church Fathers were a magnificent witness and propagated the Faith and FOUGHT heresay and continue to be a witness today and continue to fight heresay - even on these forums.

:whacky:

I do not doubt there is much truth in what the Church Fathers wrote. I do not even doubt that they still have value as a witness today, in giving interpretative clues to difficult passages of scripture and unlocking key historical information.

However, you are still evading my questions, Cinette. Please relax - I stress again I am not anti-Catholic as such. I can agree with a lot of Catholic teaching on many subjects, although there are some significant differences too. I am a MAINSTREAM PROTESTANT - I am not a FUNDAMENTALIST! Can you please, then, in this context respond to my question:

Were the Church Fathers infallible in their utterances and inerrant in their doctrinal propositions?

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I knew someone who believed in SS and SF and cheated on his wife, bullied other people and even cost a couple their business and retirement.

He and his wife were always saying “I know so and so is not saved” and things of this nature. He thought that it didn’t matter because he was “SAVED” and obviously didn’t believe in sin. That little four letter word of Luther has done tremendous damage and caused much confusion right up to today!

They were Lutherans and I do not put other Lutherans in the same basket because I know there are Lutherans and Lutherans and some are close to the one true Church.

There are false prophets and hypocrites in all churches, Catholic as well as Protestant.

I have heard of Catholic Priests who have sexually molested minors but I do not make the quantum leap of absurb logic that all Priests are wicked men or that the Catholic Church is a den of iniquity. No, I analyse all things in their appropriate place and context.

Catholic and Protestant Churches have both the wheat and the tares, who will grow together until the harvest.

You cannot reject sola scriptura and sola fide because of the example of this Lutheran man you quote. You do need to be more objective and fair when analysing a doctrinal position.

Come on, fair go, your light and absurdly superficial dismissal of sola scriptura and sola fide using this incident borders on the ridiculous, quite frankly.

You have not even interacted - in a calm, measured theological sense - with what I said in my post on sola scriptura and sola fide.

Would you like to have another attempt at doing this?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I would like to answer your question but first need to know what exactly is it that “many Catholics” reject in regard to Vat II?

There are many Catholics who do not consider Vatican 2 to be a validly called and assembled Council.

There are many Catholics who consider Vatican 2 to be a betrayal of traditional Catholicism.

 

[Pwrlftr]

No.

This is because we accept the fact that there is more to God and His word than is contained within the Bible. If you deny the writings of the Early Church Fathers…you might try to get away with that claim. However, interestingly enough it would seem that some who embrace “sola’s” will also quote the ECF’s as justifications… And apparently can’t recognize the error in doing so. In fact its not only error, but hypocrisy as well.

There is no specific “laundry list”, but here is a link to some of that information. newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm There are sub-links on the page as well. Also if you go to www.newadvent.org and use the search words “Catholic Traditions Teachings” you will get a large number of pages and articles to read that will explain it to you.

And you would have a fuller knowledge of the “truth”.

Yep.

To deny “tradition” is to deny scriptures. The Apostles tell us to hold fast to traditions:

*2 Thessalonians 2 Found 3

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.*

*1 Corinthians 15 Found 2

2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain.*

Do you think that every word spoken by Christ and the Apostles was recorded? Even the Bible clearly says not.

As many have done outside the Catholic Church since the 16th Century…but they have taken away from the gospels and changed the wording…

Thanks Rob.

My point is that we don’t know, neither you or I, what those traditions are/were that Paul is talking about. They could be the various doctrines that we don’t find explicitly in scripture but are part of your church’s sacred tradition or maybe Paul was talking about other things that later found their way in scripture.