Sola Scriptura - unifier?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LostSheep7 said:
40.png
Zynxensar:
He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.
Click to expand...
The demonic doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the source of all division
Click to expand...
No, better to say it’s the source of some division. We Catholics and EO manage to find other sources of division, as do Protestants.

The source is in the human heart, helped along by You-Know-Who.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
goout:
And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ.
Click to expand...
Again, most churches recognize some forms of tradition.
Click to expand...
You just proved the point in one sentence.

If “most churches recognize some form of tradition”, then most churches do not fully recognize who Christ is, because Christ is not a form of tradition, Christ is a person: wholly unique, Son of God Incarnate. He is not a form or an idea, he is a real divine person who took on a real and unique human nature in time and space, and started a Body that is united to Him.
Christ formed a real community among real human beings, and because it is united to him inseparably, it must exist here and now. That is not a form of tradition, it is Living Tradition that is one and continuous. Or if not living and continuous, Christ is not Christ.
Thank you for the illustration.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a Bible scholar, but as a government social worker I observed many situations that were settled by consensus. And resettled. And re resettled…
And more…

I saw other situations where one hierarchical faction reached a decision, and imposed it. On everyone. (Some would say by brute force).

Look at the NT canon’s tiny size, and the astonishing fact that it has been mostly the same for so many centuries. As a sociologist I can say it looks like the one process, not the other.
I would hope that the Catholics and their canon won out over the other early Christian movements, and their canons, because of their sanctity, though Bart Ehrman might claim it was the Magisterium swords that wiped out groups and their canons with equal claim to be Christian.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
You just proved the point in one sentence.

If “most churches recognize some form of tradition”, then most churches do not fully recognize who Christ is, because Christ is not a form of tradition , Christ is **a
** : wholly unique, Son of God Incarnate. He is not a form or an idea, he is a real divine person who took on a real and unique human nature in time and space, and started a Body that is united to Him.
Christ formed a real community among real human beings, and because it is united to him inseparably, it must exist here and now. That is not a form of tradition, it is Living Tradition that is one and continuous. Or if not living and continuous, Christ is not Christ.
Thank you for the illustration.
Click to expand...
Well, you make me think. At one end of the spectrum you have King James Bible only folk, who also think the bible is His living Word, and what you say , that Catholic tradition is His Living Tradition. One end of that spectrum has been often accused of idolatry (bibliolotry) and now one could say why not the other ( traditionolotry).

I am not sure I would liken the Body of Christ, the “Ecclesia”, the “called out ones”, the Bride of Christ, His church, as a tradition, not even Tradition.

I would think tradition is what that Body believes then does.

So perhaps we use words differently…Still does not address my different forms of tradition, different beliefs and actions that His Living Body believe to be Christ like, even Word like (apostolic). And yes, some are more Christ like than others,some are more apostolicly rooted than others, and all things ( traditions) could be judged accordingly.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
40.png
mcq72:
40.png
goout:
And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ.
Click to expand...
Again, most churches recognize some forms of tradition.
Click to expand...
You just proved the point in one sentence.

If “most churches recognize some form of tradition”, then most churches do not fully recognize who Christ is, because Christ is not a form of tradition, Christ is a person: wholly unique, Son of God Incarnate. He is not a form or an idea, he is a real divine person who took on a real and unique human nature in time and space, and started a Body that is united to Him.
Christ formed a real community among real human beings, and because it is united to him inseparably, it must exist here and now. That is not a form of tradition, it is Living Tradition that is one and continuous. Or if not living and continuous, Christ is not Christ.
Thank you for the illustration.
Click to expand...
Please provide your source for this.
 
mcq72 said:
Again, I believe OT and their scripture is prototype for new, and they certainly held no council, but mimic the consensus model.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to point out that I am not seeing how the OT is a prototype for the new?

If you read the NT you will see that Jesus had to deal with the Sadducees and Pharisees differently. So when He dealt with the Sadducees He only quoted from the 5 books of the Torah, because that is all they would accept. As for the Pharisees He could quote from the first 5 books as well as the law and the phrophets, because that is what they accepted.

I think your statement here historically proves that without the councils there would be no definitive Bible.

God Bless
 
MT1926 said:
not seeing how the OT is a prototype for the new?

If you read the NT you will see that Jesus had to deal with the Sadducees and Pharisees differently. So when He dealt with the Sadducees He only quoted from the 5 books of the Torah, because that is all they would accept. As for the Pharisees He could quote from the first 5 books as well as the law and the phrophets, because that is what they accepted.

I think your statement here historically proves that without the councils there would be no definitive Bible.
Click to expand...
do you think if they had a council they would have abandoned their convictions on the canon ?

Didn’t seem to stop Jesus from treating both of them as His own, as “Jewish”.

Jesus and the apostles had all the books of our OT and more at their disposal, all with no formal ratification.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
mcq72:
40.png
goout:
And so if you claim belief in Christ but do not recognize a continuous Tradition started by Christ, that is lip service to Christ.
Click to expand...
Again, most churches recognize some forms of tradition.
Click to expand...
You just proved the point in one sentence.

If “most churches recognize some form of tradition”, then most churches do not fully recognize who Christ is, because Christ is not a form of tradition, Christ is a person: wholly unique, Son of God Incarnate. He is not a form or an idea, he is a real divine person who took on a real and unique human nature in time and space, and started a Body that is united to Him.
Christ formed a real community among real human beings, and because it is united to him inseparably, it must exist here and now. That is not a form of tradition, it is Living Tradition that is one and continuous. Or if not living and continuous, Christ is not Christ.
Thank you for the illustration.
Click to expand...
Please provide your source for this.
Click to expand...
Please Jon…
Provide a source that your grandmother existed. This is akin to baiting Jon.

Now, you will resort to talking about documents of some kind that are written down and prove you had a grandmother, and that’s fine. But you will avoid the fact that the literary proof for your grandmother is only as good as the family it is sourced in and that it continues to live in. Or did your grandmother’s life story fall from the sky already written…

Strangers will interpret your grandmother’s story and perhaps put their own spin on it, but at the end of the day, I believe you deserve the respect of authority in the matter of your grandmother’s story.

And this personal aspect to Tradition is intensified in Christianity, where we are speaking of Inspired Word that is at it’s heart a person, not a book.

This is the whole point of Christianity: we are saved by a person, not the Law or the Bible.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Now, you will resort to talking about documents of some kind that are written down and prove you had a grandmother, and that’s fine. But you will avoid the fact that the literary proof for your grandmother is only as good as the family it is sourced in and that it continues to live in. Or did your grandmother’s life story fall from the sky already written…
Click to expand...
I haven’t made any claims about my grandmother.
Here’s the question: Is this your own opinion?
If it is, just say so.
 
goout said:
And this personal aspect to Tradition is intensified in Christianity, where we are speaking of Inspired Word that is at it’s heart a person, not a book.

This is the whole point of Christianity: we are saved by a person, not the Law or the Bible.
Click to expand...
Goout, no Christian I know of denies that. I don’t understand why you’re on about that. It comes across as denying the importance of scripture. I’ve been on CAF for over a decade, and your opinion doesn’t strike me as particularly consistent with the Catholic view of scripture.
That’s why I keep asking for a source.
 
LostSheep7 said:
But he didn’t, unlike Luther
Click to expand...
Well, people were mistaken about Jesus, thinking themselves individually and corporately righteous, above reproach.

I believe people were and still are mistaken about Luther also, and for similar reasons…

Luther was a"product" of the times and practice and culture that was Catholic. He was made by what was good and what was bad of said society and it’s church.
 
He created an irremediable division in Christendom with his rebellion and his doctrine was anathematized by the Church as heresy, so I believe I have good reasons to not think he was an honest man or had good intentions.
 
LostSheep7 said:
He created an irremediable division in Christendom with his rebellion and his doctrine was anathematized by the Church as heresy, so I believe I have good reasons to not think he was an honest man or had good intentions.
Click to expand...
Your personal opinion is not widely held by Catholic theologians today.
Pope Francis has told Lutheran pilgrims from Finland that Martin Luther’s intention 500 years ago “was to renew the Church, not divide Her”.
Click to expand...
Are we to assume you know more about this than the pope?

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...er-wanted-to-renew-the-church-not-divide-her/
 
JonNC said:
Are we to assume you know more about this than the pope?
Click to expand...
Are we to assume that Pope Francis know more about it than Saint Pius V, Saint Pius X, Leo XIII, among other Popes? They all knew and openly spoke about the rebellious and anticatholic nature of Protestantism
 
LostSheep7 said:
40.png
JonNC:
Are we to assume you know more about this than the pope?
Click to expand...
Are we to assume that Pope Francis know more about it than Saint Pius V, Saint Pius X, Leo XIII, among other Popes? They all knew and openly spoke about the rebellious and anticatholic nature of Protestantism
Click to expand...
I think it safe to say he knows more than you. Do you have a source from Catholic teaching that supports your claim that sola scriptura is demonic?
 
LostSheep7 said:
He created an irremediable division in Christendom with his rebellion and his doctrine was anathematized by the Church as heresy, so I believe I have good reasons to not think he was an honest man or had good intentions.
Click to expand...
Well, we both have put our lots in…the matters are deep…enough unfortunately back then maybe to apply Christs words “not to bring peace, but to set brother against brother…man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

“Christ will judge whose excommunication will stand.” …Luther’’…

Such things need not apply today amongst humble brethren, and certainly will not in that great day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top