Sola Scriptura Silence

[SteveGC]

Over and over, God emphasizes the key role of Scripture through the writers of the NT. Be it the authority of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16,)…

I’m sorry…how do you get “sole authority” out of “profitable”?

 

[Th0t]

What’s the difference?

newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

 

[SteveGC]

In my opinion, anything that is not written down can never stay the same, it is extremely subjected to change, the longer the period it is passed down, the more drastic the changes will be. Therefor, oral traditions cannot be trusted. Ralph

God is not entirely written down, and you believe He has stayed the same…

We don’t have to have written documentation of something for it to remain constant, ralph.

Just because a book has written words, doesn’t mean it stays the same. In fact, the only thing that might stay the same about it, assuming it is forever protected from the elements, is it’s physical appearance. The information contained within it can certainly change, for it must be extracted and transformed from text into meaning. It doesn’t mean the same things to all people, and therefore, it is changeable.

But what is one thing that can keep things the same? The power of God, of course. And if you claim that He can keep everyone’s understanding of Scripture the same just by reading it themselves (which I don’t believe He does), then He certainly can keep specific humans protected against change in traditionally passing the truth down through the age. This, in fact, IS what He did for us.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

In my opinion, anything that is not written down can never stay the same, it is extremely subjected to change, the longer the period it is passed down, the more drastic the changes will be. Therefor, oral traditions cannot be trusted. Ralph

That’s a good point. If it’s true, you should have no trouble identifying Catholic tradition which has changed over time. Let’s have it.

 

[Howie01]

josie L:

Individually ECFs could have erred (although for the most part they didn’t) nevertheless it was the Magisterium (all the bishops including the Pope) that decided and/or concluded what was and wasn’t doctrine.

Well, I would say that all of those whose teachings were rejected by the church erred.
josie L:

The ECFs individually did not have this power. Which begs the question as to how individuals like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Knox believed they had the power and/or authority to reject doctrines and then to go on to develop their own? Why did they not agree?

l don’t know why you have a problem with disagreement among the reformers. Look at all of the things in Catholicism that you can either accept, or reject, viz: evolution, Thomism vs. Molinism.
josie L:

Wasn’t sola scriptura supposed to unite, I mean at least then, you would think. Maybe they had different interpretations of SS too.

The insistence upon scripture as the sole rule of faith and morals was just that—it’s the sole rule of faith and morals. That men interpret it differently is not the fault of scripture, but the fault of men.
josie L:

Please pray tell why are there so many interpretations of SS?

Do you mean why are there so many different interpretations of scripture? If so, it’s a matter of sin—men pick and choose what they accept, and what they reject; you have people like that in your church, and refer to them as “cafeteria Catholics,” and to the rest, like me, you refer to them as heretics.
josie L:

How is it irrelevant, up until the printing press, almost nobody had their own personal bibles (they were too costly) and most could not read, therefore, how can the practice of sola scriptura make sense in the first century and onwards up until the reformation, if this was the case. If my relationship with Jesus depended upon the Word of God, which you state is the Bible alone, how if I did not own a bible or was not able to read could this make sense.

You’re wanting to make an issue where there is none. That illiteracy was high is well-known; so what?

The means God has ordained for getting out the message of Christ is preaching (Rom 10:14ff; 1 Cor 1:21. etc/)
josie L:

God would have to be cruel to institute such a doctrine at a time (pentecost) when many could not read or owned scripture (in its entirety).

That’s an appeal to emotion.
josie L:

Where is this in Scripture? Is this part of the Tradition you hold to?

Eph 4:11ff.
josie L:

Catholics do not believe that Tradition and Scripture are mutually exclusive (they are similar yet not completely so), however, Tradition does expound on matters which are not delineated (or at times alluded to) in Scriptures.

Can you list those traditions that are not alluded to in scripture.
josie L:

For example, we know the first christians baptized using the Trinitarian formula, that they believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, that they thought the use of contraceptives was a sin, that Mary was assumed, that the act of abortion (which was never literally stated in the Bible) was evil, and many other things you perceive Catholics are wrong in believing.

Catholics are highly moral people; nevertheless it’s not the preaching of morals, and the preaching of one church’s point of view concerning morality that saves, but the preaching of the word concerning Christ.
josie L:

You think basically that Tradition is unnecessary as all is contained in within Scriptures, however, we know that John states otherwise. John 21: 24-25.

Implicit in your statement is the idea that what wasn’t written was orally transmitted; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to make that case. Cite the fathers who write that they were personally and orally taught this or that doctrine, by this or that apostle.

Furthermore, it’s my belief that what wasn’t written, wasn’t written because it wasn’t necessary to equip one for every good work (2 Tim 3:17).
josie L:

And also why did Paul command the Church/es to hold fast to Traditions if they did not contain much truth which would help in our interpretation of scriptures?

Again, in those verses cited by Catholics, the traditions cited are also written down in the verses. If you think they’re different, then list them with attribution.
josie L:

Tradition was/is rejected because the reformers rejected the Church, so by default Scriptures became their sole and only source of authority.

It was by choice, and not by default.

 

[SteveGC]

I will ask you this question as I have asked others. Where does the authority come from for the “priest” to change this piece of bread and this wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and how does he do it.?

Wondering why you keep asking this question, when it has been explained to you before…quite a few times, I believe.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I will ask you this question as I have asked others. Where does the authority come from for the “priest” to change this piece of bread and this wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and how does he do it.?

“On the night He was betrayed, Jesus took bread in His sacred hands and, looking up to heaven, to you His almighty Father, He blessed the bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples saying, 'Take this, all of you, and drink it. This is my body…Do this in remembrance of me.”

The priest doesn’t ‘do it.’ The Holy Spirit ‘does it.’ The priest just acts in the person of Christ.

It is certain you will reject this, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. All it means is you reject the words of the Lord.

And where is your *sola scriptura *now?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m sorry…how do you get “sole authority” out of “profitable”?

It’s amazing what these guys can do with words, isn’t it?

 

[fhansen]

Do you mean why are there so many different interpretations of scripture? If so, it’s a matter of sin—men pick and choose what they accept, and what they reject; you have people like that in your church, and refer to them as “cafeteria Catholics,” and to the rest, like me, you refer to them as heretics.

**But cafeteria Catholics don’t make the rule of faith for Catholicism. In Protestantism, however, how do you know who’s being a cafeteria Protestant and who’s not when feeding from the Word of God?
**

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I would expect that had the apostles taught the early fathers orally, there’d be no variance in understanding either, but there was. Why was that?

The variance in understanding among the ECFs doesn’t mean they were not taught by the Apostles, it means the Apostles didn’t go far enough in their teaching. The ECFs weren’t about creating doctrine. They were trying to comprehend the meaning of the oral message, i.e., tradition. For example, the Apostles never fully developed the doctrine of John 1:1-5. The ECFs spent, literally, decades searching for the true meaning of those words. When Peter walked out the door on the day of Pentecost, he didn’t have a book in his hands. He did as the Lord instructed him. He preached. Those who heard him, told others what they heard. That’s tradition.

SS hasn’t failed, but is alive and well in those churches that truly adhere to it.

Would you care to give us your definition of success? Your statement is absurd on its face. There are literally thousands of protestant sects which adhere to SS. They all disagree about what Scripture teaches and they’re all certain they’re right. Just as you’re certain you’re right. If that’s success, the Lord is a liar. See John 16:13.

And as far as the plethora of opinions, Paul states their necessity so that those who are approved may become manifest (1 Cor 11:19).

More protestant nonsense. In your citation to Corinthians, Paul is talking about their behavior, not doctrine. If he meant differences in doctrine, he would have corrected their doctrinal errors.

They were a bunch of rascals, weren’t they, IYO?

The ex-Catholic heretics of the 16th Century? Would they were merely rascals. Luther was a profane boor who had no idea what he believed. Zwingli was an adulterer; Calvin was a murderer, and worse, a lawyer. They were all liars.

And God would send others to expound that truth outside of the church which failed to uphold it.

And those others would invent new ‘truths’ to the tune of over 34,000 different sects, increasing by the minute. Just what the Lord had in mind.

My point was that the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.

Wait a minute. Teaching by mouth is the genesis of tradition. If it’s valid, SS isn’t. Make up your mind.

That the teachings delivered by mouth did not vary from the teachings delivered by writing.

By “vary” I assume you mean ‘differ.’ You have no way to know that. Without some documentation that’s just an opinon. Like the rest of what I laughingly call ‘protestant theology.’

 

[SteveGC]

l don’t know why you have a problem with disagreement among the reformers. Look at all of the things in Catholicism that you can either accept, or reject, viz: evolution, Thomism vs. Molinism.

There must be a distinction made here, between what is a reasonable disagreement, and what is not. The Holy Spirit is not with The Church to ensure a correct, fully agreed upon doctrine of Evolution, or of Predestination, or anything else under the sun which is irrelevant to faith (salvation) and morals. Those two things specifically are what the HS protects The Church from promulgating error of. The Reformers cannot claim this unity of teaching. It also has nothing to do with what individual Catholics or non-Catholics believe, accept or reject. That’s not protected either. It’s unity of proclaiming dogmatic truths of faith and morals. Any ecclesial community that cannot demonstrate this unity is not Christ’s Church. It is significant to have this unity, because otherwise truth becomes subjective…relative. It is also highly important that this unity be visible to the entire world, and not hidden in various believers, or individual churches scattered randomly throughout the world with no definitive linkage among them. That is not authentic Christianity.

The insistence upon scripture as the sole rule of faith and morals was just that—it’s the sole rule of faith and morals. That men interpret it differently is not the fault of scripture, but the fault of men. Do you mean why are there so many different interpretations of scripture? If so, it’s a matter of sin—men pick and choose what they accept, and what they reject.

And so…it’s not a matter of proper guidance and teaching, but rather a matter of sinless acceptance of the entire Bible? As soon as someone righteously opens themselves up to the entire canon, they then, by that virtue, have the correct interpretation, and know the true rules of faith and morals? What is your source for this belief? Do you think God is satisfied that these “true Christians” are not visibly unified?

 

[josie_L]

In my opinion, anything that is not written down can never stay the same, it is extremely subjected to change, the longer the period it is passed down, the more drastic the changes will be. Therefor, oral traditions cannot be trusted. Ralph

But those oral traditions were written down, the Didache, for example, is stated to be written in 70 A.D.

 

[josie_L]

Well, I would say that all of those whose teachings were rejected by the church erred.

So individuals like Calvin, Luther did not err, but a couple hundred bishops (some of whom knew and were taught by the apostles) acting together did.

Jesus said to his apostles that he would lead them into all truth, and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Church (singular), would you not be stating otherwise with your above comment.

l don’t know why you have a problem with disagreement among the reformers. Look at all of the things in Catholicism that you can either accept, or reject, viz: evolution, Thomism vs. Molinism.

This did not affect our doctrine.

The insistence upon scripture as the sole rule of faith and morals was just that—it’s the sole rule of faith and morals. That men interpret it differently is not the fault of scripture, but the fault of men.

Do you think that God who knowingly understood the sinful nature of man would then leave it up to the individual to interpret, for that is what SS irrespectively does?

Don’t you think he would have created a system that would not allow error to overrun his Church? Ask yourself which Church has remained true to its doctrines for two millenia?

Do you mean why are there so many different interpretations of scripture? If so, it’s a matter of sin—men pick and choose what they accept, and what they reject; you have people like that in your church, and refer to them as “cafeteria Catholics,” and to the rest, like me, you refer to them as heretics (no, I do not think of you as a heretic, I would not be so unkind).

Yes and No, in your previous post you stated that people do not properly understand or apply SS, therefore my questions asking why this misunderstanding and why such differing interpretations.

You’re wanting to make an issue where there is none. That illiteracy was high is well-known; so what?

I explained the “so what” part, do you wish for me to emphasize the impracticality of such a doctrine like SS again.

The means God has ordained for getting out the message of Christ is preaching (Rom 10:14ff; 1 Cor 1:21. etc/)

That’s an appeal to emotion.

No, it’s an appeal to reason.
Eph 4:11ff.

Can you list those traditions that are not alluded to in scripture.

The assumption of Mary is what I was refering to when I wrote that (believing in her assumption does not contradict scriptures as we already have two examples in the Bible of people being assumed into Heaven). I know that this may sound strange but this is important, have you ever been to Jerusalem to see the Holy sites?

Catholics are highly moral people; nevertheless it’s not the preaching of morals, and the preaching of one church’s point of view concerning morality that saves, but the preaching of the word concerning Christ.

Implicit in your statement is the idea that what wasn’t written was orally transmitted; therefore, the burden of proof is on you to make that case. Cite the fathers who write that they were personally and orally taught this or that doctrine, by this or that apostle.

What you request is impossibly time-consuming and rather ridiculous, and you know it. But if you are truly interested in knowing then **you **can read the ECFs to find out. It would be well worth the effort.

Furthermore, it’s my belief that what wasn’t written, wasn’t written because it wasn’t necessary to equip one for every good work (2 Tim 3:17).

Implicit in your statement is the idea that what wasn’t written wasn’t necessary to equip one for every good work, the burden of proof is on you to make the case. Cite the fathers, oh wait, do you bother to read the ECFs.

Again, in those verses cited by Catholics, the traditions cited are also written down in the verses. If you think they’re different, then list them with attribution.

Implicit in your statement is the idea that traditions cited are also written down in the verses, prove it. The burden of proof is on you as you are assuming it is such.

It was by choice, and not by default.

No, it is by default, and not by choice.

 

[bullfrog654]

you regret to appreciate choice in its wholeness. those that write the law have choice (dejavue) taxes are by choice.

in my life lately have had alot of revengful hate in me effecting my daily choices sort of not caring whats in my best interest however since justice does not show its face in my desperate times i then heaven forbid take justice in my own hands

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Jerry,
These portions of your argument are irrelevant. None of these other people carried Jesus Himself, the Incarnate Word of the Lord and God’s only Divine Son, in their womb.

rocketrob

to say that the geneology of Christ is irrelevant, wow! if it is like you say why would it be put in there?

this why it is important that scripture alone is important rather than the doctrine of man.

God bless you

 

[Jerry_Marino]

as for the eucharist which not of this thread and was discussed on another which has been closed cause the likes of you go of thread. the eucharist as the catholic church teaches was not put into effect until the 1500’s at the counsel of trent, session XII, chapter IV, cf. canon II, so to say that this has been the position of the church since the beginning is false.

augustine did not think this was to be taken literally but metaphorically.

that is why we should stay on scripture alone and not the teaching of men who constantly change.

God bless.

 

[SteveGC]

to say that the geneology of Christ is irrelevant, wow! if it is like you say why would it be put in there?

this why it is important that scripture alone is important rather than the doctrine of man.

God bless you

Hi Jerry.

Obviously the geneology is quite relevant. That’s not what rocketrob was pointing out. He was trying to tell you that the impurity of Mary’s parents is irrelevant to God’s purification of Mary herself. God didn’t need to make Mary’s mother pure, for Mary was not going to be the Messiah, and her mother was not to give a Fiat to God. But Mary herself needed to be pure, for the Messiah was to be conceived from within her, following her Fiat.

God Bless

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Jesus is pure.

 

[SteveGC]

Jesus is pure.

Indeed. Which is why Mary had to be as well, to carry Jesus in her womb.

Think about it. For such a monumental, pivotal event in salvation history as was the Incarnation of God, why wouldn’t God desire for the vessel to carry Himself to be fully pure, fully immaculate? If nothing impure can enter into God’s realm, why would He choose to enter into this realm through an impure vessel?

God Bless

 

[bullfrog654]

i disagree i believe the holy spirit blessed through maryies blood giving birth to jesus but thats just my beliefe