Sola Scriptura - unifier?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcq72 said:
St.Peter tells us scripture is inspired, and that not out of what man contains , but by God Himself.Beyond that explanation is pedantic catering
Click to expand...
Indeed, but Peter was referring to the Septuagint and also some of Paul’s writings. Who decides which books contained in the NT are inspired?
mcq72 said:
this is conjecture, that no part of man’s seed was linear to Christ. As far as i know , no one has decreed the exact nature of His dna. All we know is that the HolY Spirit, did the work that a man would, or better , that no male took part, Mary being a virgin. I do not know if Mary contributed half of dna and the HS the other half…God/man combination. or did Holy Spirit contribute entire dna, like a test tube baby implant…i prefer the former.
Click to expand...
I have always wondered about this too. Scripture is clear that Mary’s body gave Jesus His humanity, but it is the seed of the male that determines the Y (male) chromosome.

think when Scripture says “you will conceive in your womb” it is a reference to her own ovum. To be born of human flesh, born of a woman, is what was the major combat against Gnosticism.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
goout:
And it was written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Well then could I say the decrees of Nicea, or Trent, or first or second Vatican were written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ ?
Click to expand...
You may not realize it, but your post shows that you are catching on. Do you realize what you just said…?
You are giving scripture and Tradition their proper footing.
 
Last edited:
If they are under or in communion with the one visible head, the Pope, they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. There is diversity in the Church but all are under one authority. That is different than all having their own authority or being their own authority.
 
Exactly, MagdalenaRita. Exactly. The one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 
Last edited:
Yes few protestants embrace tradition, but all secretly practice it. Either the tradition of Luther, Calvin, the anabaptists or the Church’s. All interpret the Bible through one combination of these lenses. They do a great deal to hide it as just the Bible though.
 
guanophore said:
Indeed, but Peter was referring to the Septuagint and also some of Paul’s writings. Who decides which books contained in the NT are inspired
Click to expand...
Who decided the Septuagint or told Peter that some of Paul’s writings were inspired…what committee/council?
 
MagdalenaRita said:
That is different than all having their own authority or being their own authority.
Click to expand...
If that is the criteria, then according to the study, there are less than the thirty thousand, which was arrived at using a different criteria.

But i suppose if we can wrest scripture incorrectly, or history, I suppose one can wrest an advantage also not intended by the study that gave us the 30,000.
 
goout said:
If a Christian community says yes to the Incarnation but gives no credence to the visible, real, and continuous Tradition of the one Church founded by Christ, then that “yes” is lip service.
Click to expand...
Source.
goout said:
If a Christian community separates or gives supremacy to scripture over Tradition, that community gives lip service to the Incarnate Christ.
Click to expand...
Source.
goout said:
You can’t have it both ways. If Christ is God Incarnate, that just mean something real , and that reality encompasses all that is human. Those human realities include human continuity, ie Tradition, Scripture written in that Tradition, and a living continuous Magisterium.
If Christ is living, then so is the Church one living organism, continuous with it’s seed in all things.

The Incarnation is not just an idea on a page.
Click to expand...
Without a source, this is simply your personal interpretation.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Besides Jesus promised His Church would always be here for us and that the Church is where you find truth.
Click to expand...
See, this is why I believe the Catholic Church belongs to God. Besides the verses about Peter being the rock that Jesus built His Church on. Here is something else:

John 14:16-18

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,k17the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.*

If the Church had the Holy Spirit since the beginning, then the Holy Spirit would never leave them. It just doesn’t make sense that God would abandon the Catholic Church. Scripture is clear here, is it not?
 
goout said:
And nowhere did I even remotely imply that.
You are reading that into the comments, because…?

Is it avoidance? Or fear of where the ideas necessarily lead you.
Click to expand...
I have no fear of ideas, just an unwillingness to let polemics stand.
goout said:
Jon, I know nothing of your mother. You probably have a family story. Maybe it’s written down. Nonetheless, the story that exists is embodied in the flesh and blood of your family, in your mother’s flesh and blood, and the flesh and blood of those before her.
Click to expand...
The reason you know nothing of my family is because you have not been exposed to my family, either in person or in writing.
The writing tells the story so that those who did not experience it first hand can learn about it.

Scripture tells us the story, guided by the Spirit. Faith comes by hearing. Every week we hear the word of God. As Christ said, it is written.
What is written? His word, that we may know, 2,000 years later, the work of God in sending His Son, that we might be saved for His sake.
 
Last edited:
Something just came to mind. First of all, I have a diverse heritage and half of my family is from a country where Christians (Catholics and Protestants) are persecuted for believing in Jesus. I asked my aunt during this past year, who was persecuted more? the Protestants or the Catholics? She said, “They don’t care, it’s all the same to them, they are both Christian.” She explained to me that they didn’t distinguish between Catholics and Protestants, and treated them the same.

I believe that the future persecution of Christians all over the world (not just in the middle east, africa and asia) will actually unite them, Catholics and non-Catholics, what do you think?
 
LeahPaz said:
If the Church had the Holy Spirit since the beginning, then the Holy Spirit would never leave them. It just doesn’t make sense that God would abandon the Catholic Church. Scripture is clear here, is it not?
Click to expand...
It must not be clear to all, since so many Protestants interpret it differently from you (and me). JonNC’s position is respectful of the Tradition teaching of the first 15 centuries, and to some extent the 5 centuries after that.. He would likely argue the Holy Spirit as promised remained with the Church Catholic, but this group (and the promise) includes many of those who are, and many who are not, under the Magisterium.

As another poster said all Christians are really following Tradition, but I think the RCC is more credible because it makes its Tradition explicit and fits in with it’s (explicit) Magisterium. (The Protestants’ magisterium is implicit and out of sight).

JonNC is challenging the RC to consult their own sources.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Who decided the Septuagint
Click to expand...
Jesus used the Septuagint to teach His Apostles, and the Jews (who did not listen) so they would have accepted His ruling on that canon.
mcq72 said:
Who … that some of Paul’s writings were inspired
Click to expand...
I can only imagine that the Holy Spirit revealed this to him.
mcq72 said:
what committee/council?
Click to expand...
The Seat of Moses was transferred by Jesus from the Sanhedrin to the Apostles.
mcq72 said:
I suppose one can wrest an advantage also not intended by the study that gave us the 30,000.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that seems pretty spurious to me. I think the same study notes that there are “30 Catholic denominations” which from my perspective, invalidates all of it.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Who decided the Septuagint or told Peter that some of Paul’s writings were inspired…what committee/council?
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is what you are asking but the Synod of Bishops in AD 382, in the Decree of Council of Rome, decided which 27 books were inspired and which were to be part of the NT Canon. There were many gnostic writings and other saint writings (but not considered inspired) to decide upon or decide against. Also there were some at that time that wanted different books in the canon. (see Marcion of Sinope).
The decree at that time also included all the books of the OT in use by Christians at that time.

They decided this based on four criteria:

Does the book go back to an apostle or an assistant of an apostle?
Has the document been read since the time of the apostles or is it new?
Was it used and read in the known evangelized regions? Was it universal?
Did the books match up to what were consistant with what the bishops were teaching in oral tradition?


God bless.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
40.png
LeahPaz:
If the Church had the Holy Spirit since the beginning, then the Holy Spirit would never leave them. It just doesn’t make sense that God would abandon the Catholic Church. Scripture is clear here, is it not?
Click to expand...
It must not be clear to all, since so many Protestants interpret it differently from you (and me). JonNC’s position is respectful of the Tradition teaching of the first 15 centuries, and to some extent the 5 centuries after that.. He would likely argue the Holy Spirit as promised remained with the Church Catholic, but this group (and the promise) includes many of those who are, and many who are not, under the Magisterium.

As another poster said all Christians are really following Tradition, but I think the RCC is more credible because it makes its Tradition explicit and fits in with it’s (explicit) Magisterium. (The Protestants’ magisterium is implicit and out of sight).

JonNC is challenging the RC to consult their own sources.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I could have said it better, except to say that I regard the Tradition of the early Church through today with more than just respect: with admiration and gratitude. I am grateful because without it, we would not know many of the things we do. Thank God.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
They decided this based on four criteria:

Does the book go back to an apostle or an assistant of an apostle?
Has the document been read since the time of the apostles or is it new?
Was it used and read in the known evangelized regions? Was it universal?
Did the books match up to what were consistant with what the bishops were teaching in oral tradition?
Click to expand...
How does this account for the exclusion of III and IV Maccabees in the western Church, while the East has always included them?
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
MagdalenaRita:
They decided this based on four criteria:

Does the book go back to an apostle or an assistant of an apostle?
Has the document been read since the time of the apostles or is it new?
Was it used and read in the known evangelized regions? Was it universal?
Did the books match up to what were consistant with what the bishops were teaching in oral tradition?
Click to expand...
How does this account for the exclusion of III and IV Maccabees in the western Church, while the East has always included them?
Click to expand...
It seems to me you are making the Catholic argument here. Usually one finds the Protestant arguing that “the Church” didn’t really need a special Magisterium as such, because the CRITERIA led the community to pretty much the obvious and inevitable canon. Then the Catholic points out the criteria are really a description of some of what happened, but no assurance the criteria are sufficient as a tool.
Some scholars might point out other books in the canon that might not meet the criteria, or books outside that might meet them, or other criteria might have been better. I would say So what?

So the Catholic confidence is not in that tool, but in the Magisterium, that used the criteria, and other tools. We both would place ultimate confidence in God. But I would emphasize the Magisterium itself as God’s tool, not criteria
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top