Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

Elvis the Catholic church did not write the New testament. Let’s be real here. The Apostles were not Catholic and trying to categorize someone as being Catholic makes no sense. The word Kathlicos simply means universal. We don’t say we’re universal, we say we’re Christians. Kathlicos is a description of the nature of the church of Jesus.

St. Ignatius - a student of the Apostle John and Bishop of Antioch - wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans on his way to a martyr’s death. This happened less than 75 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord.
In that letter he states the following:
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,
Sounds pretty Catholic to me . . .

At least we agree on the last part regarding the GOD Breathed, inerrant and reliable nature of the Bible.

It can’t be self-refuting if it is the inerrant Word of GOD. That in and of itself is a contradiction. You would have to agree that the word of GOD is our final authority on all matters of Faith. Or let’s say doctrines of Faith. From a systematic theology point of view there are different types of communication that GOD has used to reach us. HIS decrees such as “Let there be Light”, the LOGOS HIMSELF Jesus, the Prophets i.e. Nehemia, Jeremiah, etc, direct communication such as GOD speaking to Adam, Moses etc., and GOD puting his finger to paper in the 10 commandments. Or should I say finger to tablets.

The writings that make up the Bible were determined to be those that were breathed by GOD. Given that nothing is or ever will be added to the Bible we have to agree that is the source for GOD’s word. If we try to justify other doctrines of Faith based on GOD personally communicating to us then there is no real way to ever validate that teaching. This becomes a huge slippery slope because then anyone including the Pope can claim that they have had a revelation from GOD that we need to follow. How do you validate that claim if we have nothing to benchmark it against? Who is being led by Satan and who is being led by GOD?

Sola scripture simply means that doctrines of Faith cannot be made that are in contradiction to the Bible because the Bible is that final benchmark. If the Pope states that we have to believe in something to get to Heaven then we need to ask right back, show me in scripture where that is implied or stated outright. Sacred tradition on matters of salvation are unacceptable because there’s no way of validating those teachings. We are left with someone’s word that could have been corrupted or misunderstood.

As Jesus states in Mattew 4:4 (quoting Deuteronomy 8:3) “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of GOD”. Those words come from scripture my brother.

PEACE

Sola scriptura CAN be and IS self-refuting. The problem is that Protestants who hold to this false notion assume that the Bible is the TOTAL word of God.

In John 8:6, Jesus is writing with his finger in the dirt. Do you know what he wrote? Wouldn’t that be part of the “Word of God”.
John 21:25 tells us that Jesus did many things that were not written down. Wouldn’t that be part of the word of God?

John 1:1 emphatically states:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus himself IS the Word of which the Scripures are part.

St. Paul tells us in 2 Thess. 2:15:
***"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, *either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

He goes further in the next chapter, 2 Thess. 3:6:
"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us."

Sola Dei Verbum would be the “Word of God Alone”, which is what we Catholics adhere to.
**You believe in “Sola Scriptura”, which is “Scripture Alone”. Scripture itself does not support this belief. **

Plainly put, it’s un-Biblical.

 

[NDfan]

I never understood that either. In traditional Judaism, we look to BOTH oral tradition (Talmud, Kabbalah and other rabbinical commentary) as well as the Tanakh (what you call the “Old Testament”.) We do not rely on one to the exclusion of the other.

Catholicism is similar in that they rely on Scripture plus sacred church tradition/the teachings of the church fathers.

Protestantism is the odd man out, both historically and theologically!

In Judaism we had a group (karaites) that was similar to Protestants, in that they too felt they should depend only on the written Torah. Needless to say, there are very few left in the world and they are regarded by Judaism in the same way “jews for jesus/messianic jews” are: as heretics.

You are making an error here in your summation. The oral teachings as you call them became written works after the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth (The Temple) in 70AD. Without the Temple to serve as the center of teaching and the land of Judea for autonomy the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. During this time Rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writings which you still have in your possession today. Those writings govern your faith and do not contradict one another nor do you add to them under a system of infallibility. No Jewish teaching official is considered infallible and can make an infallible declaration that is not contained in your writings. Big Big difference here. If the oral teachings of the early church were meant to be included as writings of the Christian Faith then they would be contained in scripture. They are not. Just as a Jew cannot add to the Law of GOD, a Christian cannot either.

The other big difference is your oral commentary that eventually became written is used for guidance. You don’t take those oral teachings and create new doctrine that contradicts Mosaic Law. Your argument simply holds no water.

With regard to Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews being considered heretics, that is hardly comparable to Protestants being called heretics. That’s comparing apples to oranges. At least Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus have come to the realization that Jesus was and is the Messiah. Maybe you and the rest of the Jews that reject Jesus are the heretics. Without the Temple as a means for making animal sacrifices for redemption from sin, you have no way to justify yourself before GOD as a sinner. This is why Jesus as that perfect sacrificial lamb is so necessary.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

St. Ignatius - a student of the Apostle John and Bishop of Antioch - wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans on his way to a martyr’s death. This happened less than 75 years after the death and resurrection of our Lord.
In that letter he states the following:
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,
Sounds pretty Catholic to me . . .

Ignatius said wherever Jesus is, there is the Kathlicos church. Kathlicos meaning universal. He didn’t claim to be Catholic himself he was using the word Kathlicos or Katholikos which is the original Greek word to describe the church. Katholikos means concerning the whole, universal or general. I don’t say my religion is Kathilokos, I say I’m a Christian which makes me part of the Kathilokos (universal) church of Jesus. Jesus says where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there among you. According to Ignatius then churches gathered in Jesus name are Katholikos. Notice Ignatius didn’t say Roman Katholikos.

Sola scriptura CAN be and IS self-refuting. The problem is that Protestants who hold to this false notion assume that the Bible is the TOTAL word of God.

I never said the Bible is the TOTAL word of GOD. Nothing in this world has the TOTAL word of GOD in it nor does anyone in this world know the TOTAL word of GOD. That’s impossible given GOD’s infinite nature and our finite nature. Sola Scripture does not claim the Bible is the TOTAL word of GOD. Sola Scripture claims the Bible only contains the inerrant, infallible Word of GOD and is the final authority on all doctrines of Faith. You can’t create doctrine that contradicts the Bible nor can you claim that you have the Word of GOD in your possession outside of the Bible.

In John 8:6, Jesus is writing with his finger in the dirt. Do you know what he wrote? Wouldn’t that be part of the “Word of God”.

Was Jesus actually writing something legible? Perhaps Jesus was just scribbling. How do you know what he wrote in the dirt isn’t in the Bible???

**John 21:25 tells us that Jesus did many things that were not written down. Wouldn’t that **be part of the word of God?

Do you think for one minute the Apostles remember everything that Jesus did?? No they did not. Jesus promised a helper so the Apostles would remember what he taught them, and these teachings are contained in scripture.

What you have to demonstrate to me then is a teaching that Jesus made, that is not contained in scripture, and is necessary for our salvation. I’ve asked for this so many times and no Roman Catholic can answer it. And the Trinity doesn’t count given that the Trinity is man’s attempt at clarifying the relationship of GOD, SON, and Spirit. So again please tell me something that is vital for salvation that was preached by Jesus, but is not contained in Scripture. Save your time as it cannot be done.

John 1:1 **

Amen. Why do you think I disagree with this. Again I do not claim that scripture contains the total LOGOS. Nothing can as the LOGOS is infinite. But on matters of Faith and the necessities of salvation, the LOGOS gave us scripture. The RCC does not have anything from the LOGOS that is not contained in scripture.

St. Paul tells us in 2 Thess. 2:15:

You are making an assumption that what was stated in a letter is somehow different from what was stated orally. Paul says either orally or written. Well we don’t have Paul or the Apostles to teach us orally. But we do have what they wrote.

Paul also states in 2 Timothy 3:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom [1] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you **wise for salvation **through faith in Christ Jesus. 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 [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I’d say a pretty strong statement here from Paul regarding scripture.

He goes further in the next chapter, 2 Thess. 3:6:

"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us."

And I agree with him don’t you??? Why would we condone any behavior that is not consistent with scriptural tradition:shrug:

Sola Dei Verbum

would be the “Word of God Alone”, which is what we Catholics adhere to.
You believe in “Sola Scriptura”, which is “Scripture Alone”. Scripture itself does not support this belief.

I believe in Sola Dei Verbum as well as all Protestants do. The question is where do we go to get the Word of GOD alone. The answer is Sola Scripture. The problem is you think the word of GOD is contained outside of scripture and is communicated infallibly only to the Pope. This is NOT scriptural AT ALL.

PEACE

 

[elvisman]

Ignatius said wherever Jesus is, there is the Kathlicos church. Kathlicos meaning universal. He didn’t claim to be Catholic himself he was using the word Kathlicos or Katholikos which is the original Greek word to describe the church. Katholikos means concerning the whole, universal or general. I don’t say my religion is Kathilokos, I say I’m a Christian which makes me part of the Kathilokos (universal) church of Jesus. Jesus says where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am there among you. According to Ignatius then churches gathered in Jesus name are Katholikos. Notice Ignatius didn’t say Roman Katholikos.

You KNOW that’s a silly argument because the Church was being persecuted at the time and wasn’t even referred to as “Roman” yet. As a matter of fact, the word “Roman” isn’t even the official title of the Church. The official title is “The Catholic Church”.

I never said the Bible is the TOTAL word of GOD. Nothing in this world has the TOTAL word of GOD in it nor does anyone in this world know the TOTAL word of GOD. That’s impossible given GOD’s infinite nature and our finite nature. Sola Scripture does not claim the Bible is the TOTAL word of GOD. Sola Scripture claims the Bible only contains

the inerrant, infallible Word of GOD and is the final authority on all doctrines of Faith. You can’t create doctrine that contradicts the Bible nor can you claim that you have the Word of GOD in your possession outside of the Bible.
Matt. 18:15-17 CLEARLY teaches that the Church – NOT Scripture – is our final authority:
***"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. ***
***If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ ***
***If he refuses to listen to them, tell the *church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
Any other doctrine on the matter was created by fallible men, my friend. A false doctrine which you follow.
As Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Was Jesus actually writing something legible? Perhaps Jesus was just scribbling. How do you know what he wrote in the dirt isn’t in the Bible???

How do YOU know it IS?

Do you think for one minute the Apostles remember everything that Jesus did?? No they did not. Jesus promised a helper so the Apostles would remember what he taught them, and these teachings are contained in scripture.

Not ALL of it. Again - See the last line of John’s Gospel.

What you have to demonstrate to me then is a teaching that Jesus made, that is not contained in scripture, and is necessary for our salvation. I’ve asked for this so many times and no Roman Catholic can answer it. And the Trinity doesn’t count given that the Trinity is man’s attempt at clarifying the relationship of GOD, SON, and Spirit. So again please tell me something that is vital for salvation that was preached by Jesus, but is not contained in Scripture. Save your time as it cannot be done.

Here’s one. Actually, I believe it is taught in Scripture, but you don’t. However, the Catholic Church sees this as a revealed truth.
The Holy Eucharist - John 6:31-68

The RCC does not have anything from the LOGOS that is not contained in scripture.

I have to agree with you there! EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches is steeped in Scripture.

You are making an assumption that what was stated in a letter is somehow different from what was stated orally. Paul says either orally or written. Well we don’t have Paul or the Apostles to teach us orally. But we do have what they wrote.

We have MANY extra-biblical sources. The Didachae (Teachings of the Apostles), the Early Church Fathers – who, by the way were unanimous on many Catholic teachings, including (and ESPECIALLY) the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

 

[elvisman]

continued . . .

Paul also states in 2 Timothy 3:

“. . . have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you **wise for salvation **through faith in Christ Jesus. 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 [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.
I’d say a pretty strong statement here from Paul regarding scripture.

Read it CAREFULLY, my friend.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching.”
Show me where this even implies that it is sufficient.

And I agree with him don’t you??? Why would we condone any behavior that is not consistent with scriptural tradition

Paul doesn’t say “Scriptural tradition”. He mentions either an oral statementorby a letter of ours." He says that it doesn’t have to be written down. That’s where Jesus’ promise to His Church comes in.
John 16:12-15:
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to *all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. **
***He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and *declare it to you. **
**Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **

I believe in Sola Dei Verbum as well as all Protestants do. The question is where do we go to get the Word of GOD alone. The answer is Sola Scripture. The problem is you think the word of GOD is contained outside of scripture and is communicated infallibly only to the Pope. This is NOT scriptural AT ALL.

FALSE. See the passage above (John 16:12-15.
Jesus gave the Apostles - the leaders of the Church - the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into ALL TRUTH. Either Jesus was telling the truth or he is a liar. I choose to believe the former, not the latter.
He told them that he would take from what is his and declare it to them.
Tell me something, at the end of John’s Gospel, when he says that there are many other things that Jesus did but were not written down - do you see those things as being part of the Word of God?

 

[CarolsDaughter]

With regard to Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews being considered heretics, that is hardly comparable to Protestants being called heretics. That’s comparing apples to oranges. At least Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus have come to the realization that Jesus was and is the Messiah. Maybe you and the rest of the Jews that reject Jesus are the heretics. Without the Temple as a means for making animal sacrifices for redemption from sin, you have no way to justify yourself before GOD as a sinner. This is why Jesus as that perfect sacrificial lamb is so necessary.

PEACE

Jesus is not the JEWISH messiah, that is a fact scholarly Jews know. Judaism has always taught that sin can be atoned for in TWO ways: animal sacrifice, and by the doing of mitzvot (good deeds, see Proverbs 16:6 for starters.)

I have written articles disproving the messiahship claims of Jesus, articles no Christian theologians or missionaries have yet been able to disprove. BUT my intent is not to disprove his claims of messiahship to Gentiles, only to Jews who might, out of ignorance of Jewish teaching, be tempted to adopt Christianity. So let me give you fair warning at the outset: you are genuinely wasting your time if you seek to try to convert me to Christianity. If I had the time and interest (neither of which I do right now), I could quickly make sort work of any such missionary efforts.

In the short time I have been on this forum, I have had several Catholics try to convince me to believe in Jesus, and not always in the nicest of ways, either. Yet I have not tried to convert any of you who are Gentiles, to Judaism.

Based on the hostile attitudes I have found among some (not all) here, I shudder to think what it would be like if this were still the Middle Ages. The Disputation of Tortosa comes to mind, amongst others.

One thing you don’t know about me: although I am a deeply committed Jew, I have defended the Catholic church numerous times when I felt she deserved defending, not only to other Jews, but to Protestants as well. I have done this based on the historical record as I genuinely understand it (and not as liberal Jews and Protestants have distorted it.)

 

[jblake]

NDfan;:

You don’t take those oral teachings and create new doctrine that contradicts Mosaic Law. Your argument simply holds no water.

Karaite Judaism argues that Rabbinical Judaism does create new doctrines. Doctrines that do contradict the Torah. Cheeseburgers provide the clearest such example.

With regard to Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews being considered heretics, that is hardly comparable to Protestants being called heretics.

From the POV of Judaism, it is comparable.

xan

jonathon

 

[CarolsDaughter]

Karaite Judaism argues that Rabbinical Judaism does create new doctrines. Doctrines that do contradict the Torah. Cheeseburgers provide the clearest such example.

From the POV of Judaism, it is comparable.

xan

jonathon

The prohibition against mixing meat and dairy (which stems from “thou shalt not seeth a kid in its mother’s milk”) is why religious Jews cannot eat meat and dairy together (cheeseburgers.) It makes perfect sense to me.

Believing in a messiah that is divine goes directly against basic Jewish teaching as found in many places, notably Deut. 4 in the Torah. That is why to believe that while claiming to be an observant Jew is heresy. Such Jews are automatically placed into cherem (Hebrew for excommunication—a word I’m sure you folks are familiar with).

A Jew claiming to believe in Jesus as Christians do while also claiming to be a member of the Jewish faith is akin to someone claiming to be a religious Catholic yet advocating abortion. Maybe that will make some here grasp it better.

 

[jblake]

CarolsDaughter;:

The prohibition against mixing meat and dairy (which stems from “thou shalt not seeth a kid in its mother’s milk”) is why religious Jews cannot eat meat and dairy together (cheeseburgers.) It makes perfect sense to me.

The Karaite position is that putting a slice of cheese on a burger is not a violation of that commandment, because it only prohibits cooking in milk, not the simultaneous eating of milk and meat.

In the other direction, is Gelatin. Karaite Judaism rejects it, because it is pork. Rabbinical Judaism allows it to be consumed, despite it being pork.

xan

jonathon

 

[CarolsDaughter]

The Karaite position is that putting a slice of cheese on a burger is not a violation of that commandment, because it only prohibits cooking in milk, not the simultaneous eating of milk and meat.

In the other direction, is Gelatin. Karaite Judaism rejects it, because it is pork. Rabbinical Judaism allows it to be consumed, despite it being pork.

xan

jonathon

Do you know anything about the karaites? They are a very tiny group, always have been, and like the Shomronim (Samaritans), were written out of the Jewish people AGES ago. Before the Middle Ages, in fact. They are not anymore representative of authentic Judaism than the messianics are.

During WW2, when the nazis were rounding up Jews to kill them, they did not take any karaites because even they knew they were not Jews.

 

[jblake]

CarolsDaughter;:

Do you know anything about the karaites?

Yes.

They are a very tiny group, always have been, and like the Shomronim (Samaritans)

Religions that don’t accept converts wither and die.

In the last five or so years, both groups have performed conversions into their faith. However, you have to go back more than 500 years in time, to find the next most recent converts, which were from Rabbinical Judaism. (In the case of Shomronim, the convert has to be female.) In both instances, prior conversions were from Rabbinical Judaism.

Before the Middle Ages, in fact. They are not anymore representative of authentic Judaism than the messianics are.

Were it not for Karaite Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism would lack both the Torah and the Talmud.

During WW2, when the nazis were rounding up Jews to kill them, they did not take any karaites because even they knew they were not Jews.

Initially, Muslims were not sent to the gas chambers. Once Rabbinical Jews started passing themselves off as being members of that specific branch of Islam, all members of that branch of Islam got the gas oven treatment.

Or are you claiming that Islam is simply a misunderstood sect of Judaism?

xan

jonathon