Sola Scriptura is True

[Religio71]

People who are in the body on earth together should pray for one another in faith and ask each other to do the same.

However, when you pray to one who has left the body you are imparting faith to them by the act of prayer directed at them in the confidence that they can hear you and will act on your behalf. That is worship.

Prayer is a form of worship:

Luke 2:37 ESV
37 and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

God is the one who hears our prayers:

Psalm 65:2 ESV
2 O you who hear prayer,
to you shall all flesh come.

The one to whom all flesh will bow down is the one who hears prayers. Prayer as Christ taught us should be directed at God.

I have never seen such contrived definitions of prayer and worship.

Luke 2:37 does not say that prayer is worship. In fact, it says that she worshipped WITH prayer. If it said “she did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and words”, does that mean that words are worship? No. Please use logic.

Here is the Webster’s definition of pray:

**transitive verb 1 : entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea
2 : to get or bring by praying
intransitive verb 1 : to make a request in a humble manner
2 : to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving
**

Clearly, the primary definitions of “pray” do not mean worship. This is how Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. rightly understand the word pray. And God is the only one that can answer prayers.

Also, your deduction that “when you “pray” (request/entreat) to one who has left the body…” is pure speculation that does not hold to sola scriptura. And you should focus on “left the body”, as those who have physically died, but are alive in Christ, are not limited by the physicality of the body or this world. In fact, I was reading the Left Behind series (written by an evangelical), and in the prequel “Rapture”, they had an interesting fictional description of what Heaven is like. You should check out what a fellow Protestant wrote, supposedly based on the Bible alone.

For Catholics, our Church is truly the body of believers, as it includes ALL believers that are on earth right now, and were on earth in the past. As the Body of Christ, it is not bound by time or space, but is in fact eternal.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,
Granted; but, it is rather curious that every dogmatic Sola Scriptura partisan I’ve come across on these fora snips the ECF’s and Doctors of the Church to feign support for Protestant theory, but will deny that they are ALL (as in every single one of them) Catholics and will seek, as you have done, to sweep away the entirety of their theology in favor of “proof texts.”

Sorry to take so long to reply but we have had a number of problems here most of the day.

My view with respect to the Church Fathers and the early church is that what was accepted as orthodox was much wider than what is accepted by the Catholic Church today and would include many Protestant views. For example Augustine says that Purgatory is something that can be believed or not.

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

However this would no longer be an allowable view as the Catholic Church has defined dogma on Purgatory. This to me is one of the greatest errors of the Catholic Church, defining more than is necessary. Another example is transubstantiation. The Church Fathers seemed generally content to leave the Real Presence as a mystery, but the Catholic Church has seen fit to require belief in a particular formula.

The same Scriptures that lead Aquinas to defend the Creeds as a summary of the Gospel informed him of his Marian devotion. Will you at least admit this?

Actually, Aquinas himself admits the contrary.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth.

Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27, Article 1.
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q27_A1.html

Not me. I freely admit that some of the ECF’s had Lutheran views on the Eucharist, for instance. What remains, however, is that they were ALL Catholic and were ready to reject a private view if it clashed with the Apostolic faith of the Church in any way. The few who did not (Origen, Tertullian, come to mind) were excommunicated.

I have already indicated my view on what was accepted by the early Church and the Church Fathers as orthodox. My question is what happens to those who expressed views that were later excluded. For example Aquinas appears to have rejected the view on the Immaculate Conception in the terms defined by Pius IX. Now I understand that technically according to the Church this was a theologoumenon until it was dogmatically defined but to me that begs the question. Did God change His requirements as to what had to be believed because the Pope defined dogma? Why would God require less from early Christians that He does of those today? If God didn’t change and it always had to be believed, did the Church not fail those in the past by not defining required beliefs at an earlier date?

However, what would you consider it, then, should a great theologian with such high regard for the Scriptures pray to saints, refer to Mary as the giver of graces, accept her “ever-virgin” status, etc.? Aren’t those considered by protestants to be outside of Scripture—therefore, outside of revealed Truth and pagan in origin?

My point is not that some Catholic Tradition may not be true, but that because it is not clearly set out in Scripture, it is not necessary to believe it. It is not necessary to know all truth. For example, what colour were Jesus’ eyes? Some answer would be true, but is it necessary to know this?

In another thread I posted a summary of my reasons for accepting Sola Scriptura. Even in summary form it is quite a few pages long and I don’t know if it would be worth doing again.

 

[DD2007]

Consider the verses, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Matthew 28:20, and “He that heareth you, heareth me" Luke 10:16, etc. This clearly shows the*Apostles teaching is true revelation.

That is how we got the New Testament canon. The apostles writings are authoritative so all of them are scripture. We go the Old Testament Canon from the prophets writings. The rest of the people simply received them from the hands of the apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 2:20.

 

[Religio71]

Actually, Augustine says that you don’t have to believe in a “purgatorial fire”, not Purgatory. And the Church has not defined dogma on what exactly happens in Purgatory, save for a belief in an intermediary state after death for many of those that are saved, that they may be purified before entrance to Heaven. In fact, the Eastern Catholic churches do not believe in, and are not required to believe in, remittance of venial sins, temporal punishment for sins already forgiven, etc., as related to Purgatory, since these have not been defined as dogma, either by an Ecumenical Council, Magisterium, or Papal Infallibility.

 

[SyCarl]

Actually, Augustine says that you don’t have to believe in a “purgatorial fire”, not Purgatory. And the Church has not defined dogma on what exactly happens in Purgatory, save for a belief in an intermediary state after death for many of those that are saved, that they may be purified before entrance to Heaven. In fact, the Eastern Catholic churches do not believe in, and are not required to believe in, remittance of venial sins, temporal punishment for sins already forgiven, etc., as related to Purgatory, since these have not been defined as dogma, either by an Ecumenical Council, Magisterium, or Papal Infallibility.

To me the Council of Trent would seem to say otherwise.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

 

[DD2007]

Going by the Bible alone, how do you know that what Paul (or any other person for that matter) wrote should be scripture?

Your questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of an apostle or a prophet. The Holy Spirit testifies to the validity of scripture because scripture speaks to the children of God with the voice of God and they hear him when they read it. Those who don’t know him don’t recognize him.

John 10:27 ESV
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 8:43 ESV
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

The people of God received the texts from the apostles and prophets. When the apostles and prophets die the texts have their inspired teachings in them preserved for us to keep their teachings taught forever.

And I’m also wondering where the Bible says “The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died”

We know that because the Revelation of John is th last book received from him by the people of God.

and that everything the prophets and apostles wrote is canonical,

Ephesians 2:20 clearly states that their teachings are what the church is built upon. Those people spoke for God and delivered his word to us.

and where it says “We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.”

That is simply known because their writings were too important to lose and the Holy Spirit preserves scripture.

Isaiah 55:11 ESV
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

 

[Religio71]

To me the Council of Trent would seem to say otherwise.

And to me, the Treaty of Brest clearly expresses the breadth of the matter.

 

[Des]

To me the Council of Trent would seem to say otherwise.

Trent never mentions the ‘exact type’ of suffering we go through. You’ve misinterpreted Trent if you say otherwise.

 

[SyCarl]

And to me, the Treaty of Brest clearly expresses the breadth of the matter.

The treaty does not appear to say much about Purgatory, but even so, my understanding that such could not change the decree of an ecumenical council.

 

[Des]

That is how we got the New Testament canon. The apostles writings are authoritative so all of them are scripture. We go the Old Testament Canon from the prophets writings. The rest of the people simply received them from the hands of the apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 2:20.

You continue to repeat this however what it doesn’t mention, is the exact procedure the Church went through, to disregard some books while keeping others now does it. You’ve yet to show the list of NT books that should have been in the Bible. After all, if we use your logic as before where God knows all things in he future when you insist he meant ‘All future NT Books’ in that verse, he surely could have made them write those down on the pens of the other Apostles. Either way, Sola Scripture cannot prove which books belong to Scripture and which do not.

 

[Religio71]

The treaty does not appear to say much about Purgatory, but even so, my understanding that such could not change the decree of an ecumenical council.

You should take a gander at the Eastern Catholic forums, as this is discussed ad nauseum. Also:

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm

You will find that the Latin Catholic understanding of Purgatory is not binding on Eastern Catholics. In fact, Eastern Catholics don’t even use the Latin Catholic word “Purgatory”.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Your questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura is only in effect in the absence of an apostle or a prophet.

And how, exactly, do you know “Sola Scripture is only in effect in the absence of an apostle or a prophet”? What, exactly, are you basing this upon? If it’s upon the Bible, please quote book, chapter, and verse. If it’s not upon the Bible, then it’s hardly ***sola ***scriptura, is it?

The Holy Spirit testifies to the validity of scripture because scripture speaks to the children of God with the voice of God and they hear him when they read it. Those who don’t know him don’t recognize him.

John 10:27 ESV
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I can’t help but notice the text says ***hear, ***not read.

John 8:43 ESV
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Here the text says “what I say” and mentions ***hearing ***the word. Nothing here about reading.

The people of God received the texts from the apostles and prophets. When the apostles and prophets die the texts have their inspired teachings in them preserved for us to keep their teachings taught forever.

True, but irrelevant to answering my questions.

We know that because the Revelation of John is th last book received from him by the people of God.

You’re begging the question. You assume sola scriptura in your answer. Where does scripture say that because Revelation is the last book received that it means the canon was closed? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

Ephesians 2:20 clearly states that their teachings are what the church is built upon. Those people spoke for God and delivered his word to us.

That does not answer the question at all. I asked how you know, as you stated, that “everything the prophets and apostles wrote is canonical.” I did not ask you how you know *some *of their writings are canonical. I asked how you know everything they ever wrote is.

That is simply known because their writings were too important to lose and the Holy Spirit preserves scripture.

Isaiah 55:11 ESV
11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

You’re assuming the word is all written. That is, again you are begging the question, assuming sola scriptura when that’s what you’re supposed to be proving.

Furthermore, you didn’t answer my question at all. I asked how you know ***from scipture alone ***“We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture.” But did you notice what you did? You said, “That is simply known because their writings were too important to lose.” Where does the Bible say that? Please show me where in the Bible it says “We have all their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture” because their writings were too important to lose. Book, chapter, and verse, please. And please be sure your quote specifically mentions the canon.

 

[SyCarl]

Trent never mentions the ‘exact type’ of suffering we go through. You’ve misinterpreted Trent if you say otherwise.

Well if you don’t like the example from Purgatory, what about Pope Gelasius and transubstantiation?

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

(Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

 

[DD2007]

And how, exactly, do you know “Sola Scripture is only in effect in the absence of an apostle or a prophet”? What, exactly, are you basing this upon? If it’s upon the Bible, please quote book, chapter, and verse.

Here is where peter lays out the plan.

2 Peter 1:12-21 ESV
12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Shorten your posts if you want a reply. Hardly anyone reads long posts so it is fruitless to waste the time unless it is something new which yours wasn’t since you utterly misunderstand the application of sola scriptura and even the purpose of scripture and write the same old stuff catholics always write who fear the bible. It is meant to train one from God for every good work. There was a tikme when it was not. It was received by believers from the hand of the prophet or apostle who wrote it or approved it.

 

[SyCarl]

You should take a gander at the Eastern Catholic forums, as this is discussed ad nauseum. Also:

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm

You will find that the Latin Catholic understanding of Purgatory is not binding on Eastern Catholics. In fact, Eastern Catholics don’t even use the Latin Catholic word “Purgatory”.

Would that not amount to a change of doctrine if Eastern Catholics are not bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent? Why should anyone be bound by them then?

 

[ccolley2]

That old excuse has been refuted long ago.

Here is the proper exegesis for this passage:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

*Breathed out by God *- Inspired by God authoritative, the words of God, God made this writing happen for a purpose.

*Profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction, training in righteousness *- This is the purpose of scripture. This is what it is good for. Teaching the truth. Rebuking false doctrines. Correcting errors, and training in righeousness. That is everything a christian would need.

*That the man of God may be competent *- Who scripture is meant for and for what purpose. Those who are regenerate believers in God the elect; especially teachers.

Equipped for EVERY good work - This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this passage isn’t true. Therefore, one must believe in the sufficiency of scripture if they believe in biblical inerrancy which the Roman Church claims it does.

So the word every is all encompasing and certainly teaches sufficiency.

Also, The table of contents of scripture is found in this passage:

Ephesians 2:20 ESV
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

The prophets and apostles spoke from God. Everything they wrote is canonical. We have all of their writings in the 66 book canon of scripture. That is how we got the bible. The prophets and apostles wrote it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Church received it from them as true. Jesus Christ himself the Word of God is the cornerstone of the Church that is built upon the revelation of the prophets and apostles from God himself. That is why the church is apostolic we have their teachings recorded in scripture. The canon was closed when the last apostle (John) died. The bible is the written word of God and includes everything in it we need for faith and practice.

Your apologists have been refuted.

Sorry, but you err on several counts.

First of all 2 Timothy 3: 16-17 is not referring to the New Testament…notice at 2Tim3:15…"…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation…"
How old do you suppose Timothy is?? Because when Timothy was a child only the Old Testament existed. So are you arguing “Sola Old Testament”? Surely not.

Secondly, the Greek text actually says…“every” not “all”. So if the whole of Scripture is sufficient…then every individual Scripture in it is also sufficient. So that means Sola Matthew, sola Mark Sola Luke sola John or even sola 3 John.

Third, If Scripture is totally sufficient, then how do you explain these passages?

2Timothy2:19-21"Paul says that whoever purifies himself from ignoble things will become “ready for every good work.”
and James 1:4…" Let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing…" Looks like Steadfastness alone is sufficient.

You asserted:

*This is the part where the passage teaches sufficiency of scripture. It is inspired by >God so that a child of God can be equipped for EVERY good work that can possibly be >done here on earth. If there is any work that can be done that isn;t in scripture then this >passage isn’t true. *

This is your fallible personal interpretation…the Catholic Church’s interpretation is different…so how do you know which one is right? If all we need is Scripture alone…then how do we discern the spirit of truth?? How does the Bible say we do that?

BTW, Regarding the cannon of scripture…(ie the Table of Contents). Which Old Testament do you think Jesus and the Early Christians used?

The Protestant OT is based on the Palestinian or Hebrew cannon(established in 100 AD). The Catholic OT is based on the Alexandrian or Greek Cannon(established in 250-125 BC).
The Alexandrian Cannon (the Catholic OT) was used by Jesus and the Early Christian Church. The Hebrew cannon was used by the Jews in Jamnia who had rejected Jesus.
I would much rather use the OT cannon that Jesus used.

Last but not least, Catholics did NOT add seven books to the OT Scriptures, Luther took them out. And he wanted to remove James and Revelations as well, but was convinced to leave them in. The cannon was set by the late 300’s.

In a way, Protestants are right about the Catholics adding books to the Bible. We added 27 books to it…and we call it the New Testament~

CKC

 

[nsper7]

Would that not amount to a change of doctrine if Eastern Catholics are not bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent? Why should anyone be bound by them then?

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_04081999_en.html

Here is an explanation by Pope John Paul II.

 

[Des]

Well if you don’t like the example from Purgatory, what about Pope Gelasius and transubstantiation?

(Philp Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, 95)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.x.xxii.html

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

He used the word substance to describe the physical look of the Eucharist as it appears to us and not the same way as it was described in Trent. A little thing called semantics I would say.

 

[Des]

Secondly, the Greek text actually says…“every” not “all”. So if the whole of Scripture is sufficient…then every individual Scripture in it is also sufficient. So that means Sola Matthew, sola Mark Sola Luke sola John or even sola 3 John.

This was a nice read before I hit the hay. Well done ccolley.

 

[Religio71]

Would that not amount to a change of doctrine if Eastern Catholics are not bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent? Why should anyone be bound by them then?

No it is not a change in doctrine. In fact, one needs to fully understand the matter of reunification of Orthodox communities with the Bishop of Rome to form the various Eastern Catholic churches to understand why they are not bound by Latin Catholic understandings of the Council of Trent (and other Ecumenical Councils). Eastern Catholics have different ways of expressing belief, liturgy, and traditions. As per the terms of reunification (and emphasized by Pope John Paul II), they are to retain their Eastern Catholic identities, and not be influenced by “latinization”. Truly, we see this as how the Church was prior to the Great Schism. Purgatory and its related doctrines are binding on the Roman Catholic church, however such views, per the Treaty of Brest, among others, are not binding on Eastern Catholics. Likewise, Roman Catholics are not bound to believe in theology related to icons, differences in understanding what priests and deacons can and cannot do (can a deacon ordinarily perform solemn baptism? does a priest confer the sacrament of matrimony or is he a witness of it?).

There is no change in doctrine because Eastern Christianity never had any doctrine to change.