Hello Sola!
Yesterday you posted your PROOF that the Bible supports SS. I have been thinking and reading up on this and consulted my tracts and have come with the following for you. I can’t find your posting right now but you know what I mean.
The belief that the Bible alone is the sole source of Christian revelation is not found in the Bible (sorry). The text from 2 Tim 3:37 is a favourite used by Protestants to prove that scripture is all we need as the sole rule of faith. Not so. Some cannot distinguish between “all scripture” and “only scripture”. Although 2 Tim 3:17 says that scripture is useful, or profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, it does not say that it is
sufficient. To say that ALL SCRIPTURE is God breathed or inspired, which we all accept, is not the same as saying that only scripture is inspired. The text indicates that there are also other aspects of the truth delivered by Christ to his Church (which indeed there are) which are also inspired. Anyone who does not understand that does not understand plain English. You being a lawyer are obliged to understand language! Yet we have to labour this point again and again to get thru to fundamentalists (even to you Sola).
2 Tim3:17 (75 AD). Much of the NT was not yet written. It was still in oral form so here Paul is referring to the OT. Kernel of the NT was only put on the same footing as the OT between 170 and 220 AD (see Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church). At the Councils held at Rome Hippo and Carthage in 382, 393 and 397 AD – that is more than 3 centuries after Pentecost – under Pope Damasus I (37th Bishop of Rome after Peter) discerned what books should be considered canonical together with the OT and placed in that book the Bible.
The Bible is a Catholic book. History clearly shows that. How can you trust it? Some people mistrust everything else about the Catholic hhurch… Please tell me what Bible one would have used as the sole rule of faith if one had been a believer in the year 200 or so?
S Tradition ie the FULL Wod of God delivered to us, was still mostly in oral form, very little of the written word had been committed to writing.
The Word was preached. Few could read anyway. Paul, in 2 Thes 2:15 gives us very clear instructions ‘So brethren stand firm and hold fast to all the traditions (teachings) we have passed on to you whether by word of mouth or what is written). Show me in the Bible where we are instructed to commit all the truths to writing. Some of the oral truths would be : The Apostles Creed, Teachings in the Didache, (Teachings of the Apostles) giving instructions of the forms of prayer to be used during the canon of the Mass, hymns and other important teachings.
The word Trinity is not found within the pages of the bible. It had to be clearly defined by the church at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD in the face of heresay as were other truths implicit or in embryo form in scripture, such as the hypostatic union of Christ ie the fact that in Christ there is both the nature of man and the nature of God and they are inseparable. The Church has authority to do this by virtue of Mat 16:18-19.
In 2 Pet 3:16 where Peter mentions “some things in Paul’s writings are hard to understand [Paul’s letters were written between 50 and 75 AD] which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures”. The “other” scriptures refer to the OT. Loose manuscripts of many of the NT scriptures were circulating in the Church along with many others such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Barnabas etc which the Church in 393 considered NOT inspired.
I do not know what you are trying to prove by pointing out the fact that Peter refers to the writings as “scripture”, in 2 pet 3:16. So what! Nowhere the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. If so please give clear proof.
I have done my homework - now read it! I know that I have repeated things that have been said over and over and over but you keep claiming SS over and over and over.
Ciao
)
