"Sola Scriptura"

[Mailman]

But, there was no “Old Testament” until the Catholic Church canonized it as such. The Jews settled their canon later, in response to Christianity. Which would/should you accept?

"How wrong you are! And do you know why? It is because you do not know the Scriptures…" (Mark 12:24).

Firstly, God used the Jews to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures (Rom. 3:1-2). By reading the Jews’ Scriptures (Luke 4:16) and by His constant reference to its texts, Jesus in a way acknowledged that the Jews were able to preserve the OT intact.

The Jews canonized their Scriptures (our OT today) a long time ago, at the time of Ezra. We have the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, that the complete Old Testament was finally settled and established in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (“Against Apion,” I, 8). By this, Josephus meant that the Old Testament canon was completed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, for these two men of God lived in Artaxerxes’ time.

Josephus also mentions that there had not been any prophet who had left any writings from the time of Artaxerxes until the New Testament Period. Even the writer of Maccabees recognized that up to his time the inspired prophets had ceased with Malachi. “And there was great stress in Israel [in 168 B.C.], such as there had not been SINCE THE TIME WHEN THE PROPHETS CEASED TO APPEAR TO THEM” (I Macc. 9:27). Without men of God in a prophetical office, it was impossible to have inspired writings. It is therefore plain that Josephus, who was one of the leading Pharisees of his day, and other prominent Jews, believed the canon of the Old Testament was completed under Ezra and Nehemiah.

Jesus Himself showed us that He regarded the Old Testament canon as complete when He said, “…It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). The “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” is the written record preserved in the Jews’ Scriptures.

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture [the OT, without the Apocrypha] is not only valid, but complete in its three divisions:

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). Here, Christ clearly shows the three major divisions of the OT – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (referred to as Psalms). This arrangement of the books has always been reckoned with the Jews as having had its origin in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ryle, “Canon of the Old Testament,” p. 252; Angus, “Bible Handbook,” p. 568).

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this by saying: “The Jews at the time of Jesus Christ ACKNOWLEDGED AS CANONICAL, or included in their collection of sacred writings, all the so-called proto-canonical books of the O.T. CHRIST and the apostles ENDORSED this faith of the Jews, so that we have divine authority for their Scriptural character.” Note that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals) are not included. Josephus also said that the Jews NEVER accepted any other books as inspired other than those compiled in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The completeness of the Jewish Scriptures and its 3 divisions as stated by Christ is also confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, & wa-Kethubim, i.e., the Law, the prophets, and the writings.” Note that this is the same 3 divisions mentioned by Christ. The Jews accepted only the books within the three divisions as inspired. No other books were ever recognized as being canonical. The Apocrypha were never accepted.

 

[foundthelight]

Apparently your church seems to think so. Apparently one need not even recognize Christ to be saved.

I take exception to your entire post, however I will focus on this one point.

I, and all Catholics, have accepted and publicly proclaimed Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. None can be saved without this. To make such a statement about us just shows your ignorance. You are a product of what you have been taught. A product of the *Traditions *of your church.

Instead of telling us what we believe, why don’t you ask us? Perhaps you will learn that some of the traditions which you have been taught are false.

 

[foundthelight]

"How wrong you are! And do you know why? It is because you do not know the Scriptures…" (Mark 12:24).

Firstly, God used the Jews to preserve the Old Testament Scriptures (Rom. 3:1-2). By reading the Jews’ Scriptures (Luke 4:16) and by His constant reference to its texts, Jesus in a way acknowledged that the Jews were able to preserve the OT intact.

The Jews canonized their Scriptures (our OT today) a long time ago, at the time of Ezra. We have the testimony of Josephus, the Jewish historian, that the complete Old Testament was finally settled and established in the days of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (“Against Apion,” I, 8). By this, Josephus meant that the Old Testament canon was completed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, for these two men of God lived in Artaxerxes’ time.

Josephus also mentions that there had not been any prophet who had left any writings from the time of Artaxerxes until the New Testament Period. Even the writer of Maccabees recognized that up to his time the inspired prophets had ceased with Malachi. “And there was great stress in Israel [in 168 B.C.], such as there had not been SINCE THE TIME WHEN THE PROPHETS CEASED TO APPEAR TO THEM” (I Macc. 9:27). Without men of God in a prophetical office, it was impossible to have inspired writings. It is therefore plain that Josephus, who was one of the leading Pharisees of his day, and other prominent Jews, believed the canon of the Old Testament was completed under Ezra and Nehemiah.

Jesus Himself showed us that He regarded the Old Testament canon as complete when He said, “…It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). The “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” is the written record preserved in the Jews’ Scriptures.

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture [the OT, without the Apocrypha] is not only valid, but complete in its three divisions:

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). Here, Christ clearly shows the three major divisions of the OT – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (referred to as Psalms). This arrangement of the books has always been reckoned with the Jews as having had its origin in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ryle, “Canon of the Old Testament,” p. 252; Angus, “Bible Handbook,” p. 568).

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this by saying: “The Jews at the time of Jesus Christ ACKNOWLEDGED AS CANONICAL, or included in their collection of sacred writings, all the so-called proto-canonical books of the O.T. CHRIST and the apostles ENDORSED this faith of the Jews, so that we have divine authority for their Scriptural character.” Note that the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals) are not included. Josephus also said that the Jews NEVER accepted any other books as inspired other than those compiled in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The completeness of the Jewish Scriptures and its 3 divisions as stated by Christ is also confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, & wa-Kethubim, i.e., the Law, the prophets, and the writings.” Note that this is the same 3 divisions mentioned by Christ. The Jews accepted only the books within the three divisions as inspired. No other books were ever recognized as being canonical. The Apocrypha were never accepted.

When Paul spoke of Scripture he was using the Septuagint. Which does include the books you refer to as “Apocrypha”. This was the only scripture available in the Greek language. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[Mailman]

Please explain how “the clear teachings in Scripture” have produced 33,000 arguing denominations?!?

Ah, but there’s the rub! The teachings need proper authority and proper interpretation to be properly understood.

I don’t want to answer that. It’s best we let the mother church explain how their estranged daughters got into such confusion. Maybe the old saying applies: “Like mother, like daughter.” The mother church is confused on how to understand its scriptures, so what do you expect from its daughters? It has not even made up its mind on whether to believe in a literal 6-day creation, in Adam and Eve or evolution, in the historicity of the biblical patriarchs and prophets, and in most everything else in the Bible except for things not plainly taught there like the trinity, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the “Immaculate Conception, praying to dead saints, etc.

Have you ever wondered how the CCC could be so verbose yet so difficult to understand? Precisely because it lacks understanding of the Scriptures and so resorts to being ambiguous to play safe. The result is a Babel of opinions from its laity on even the most basic of beliefs like the origins of life, the historicity of Adam and Eve and the many biblical personalities, the truthfulness or falsity of evolution, the existence of hell, etc. And have you heard that it’s thinking of changing the doctrine on limbo. When they finally make that official, we should know whether the RCC is really infallible on matters of faith, as we should be hearing a large rumble in the heavens of millions of little babies being moved to wherever the RCC says they should be placed.

 

[Mailman]

When Paul spoke of Scripture he was using the Septuagint. Which does include the books you refer to as “Apocrypha”. This was the only scripture available in the Greek language. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

Don’t you believe in your own church’s teaching???

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“The Jews at the time of Jesus Christ ACKNOWLEDGED AS CANONICAL, or included in their collection of sacred writings, all the so-called proto-canonical books of the O.T. CHRIST and the apostles ENDORSED this faith of the Jews, so that we have divine authority for their Scriptural character.”

“Proto-canonical” means the first to be canonized. That is RCC language. The Apocrypha is called “Deutero-canonical” deuteros, second] by the RCC.

 

[Mailman]

**And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. **

It’s right there. There is nothing to interpret.

Where??? Where does it say “Holy Mother Church”? Or better still “Roman Catholic Church”? Or “Catholic Church”? Or “Holy Catholic Church”?

You should say: “We interpret ‘the church’ to mean the Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[Church_Militant]

I voted no - the scriptures themselves may be an authority, but they can’t be final…just look what happens when you don’t have a valid authority to tell us how to interpret the essentials in scripture.

But maybe I’m reading the question the wrong way!

 

[Pwrlftr]

I take exception to your entire post, however I will focus on this one point.

I, and all Catholics, have accepted and publicly proclaimed Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. None can be saved without this. To make such a statement about us just shows your ignorance. You are a product of what you have been taught. A product of the *Traditions *of your church.

Instead of telling us what we believe, why don’t you ask us? Perhaps you will learn that some of the traditions which you have been taught are false.

Did I mistate something? I don’t have the refernce handy but am sure that your catechism says as much that it’s possible for even non-Christians to be saved.

I’ll try to post this later.

 

[Church_Militant]

Where??? Where does it say "… Or “Catholic Church”?

You should say: “We interpret ‘the church’ to mean the Roman Catholic Church.”

Acts 9:32 in the Greek.

ai men oun ekklhsiai kaq olhV thV ioudaiaV kai galilaiaV kai samareiaV eicon eirhnhn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tw fobw tou kuriou kai th paraklhsei tou agiou pneumatoV eplhqunonto

 

[Church_Militant]

Did I mistate something? I don’t have the refernce handy but am sure that your catechism says as much that it’s possible for even non-Christians to be saved.

I’ll try to post this later.

So? St. Paul says the same thing in Romans 2.

11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. 13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[Mailman]

Pwrlftr asks: “What is required for salvation that isn’t found in scripture?”
Nothing. What do you think we teach as required for salvation that isn’t in scripture?

Let me get this straight. There is nothing that is required for salvation that is not found in Scripture. Yet, we need both Scripture and Tradition to have the truth about salvation [about matters of faith]. If there is nothing outside of Scripture that is required for salvation, then the teachings in Tradition has nothing to do with salvation. Did I get that right?

 

[guanophore]

Authority requires characteristics that Scripture does not have. It requires discernment, intellect, and the ability to act with the will. Scripture is not the final authority because it was never intended to do these things. These actions require a person.

What if we rephrase the question, how would you guys answer this:
“Is Scripture, properly interpreted, the final authority in faith and
life?”

No. God is the final authority. He expressed HIs will through the Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium.

 

[Mailman]

If your pastor was ordained by the laying on of hands by his predessor, and he by his, and the line can be traced directly back to one of the Twelve, you have the original Church.

Each Catholic priest can trace his ordination back to one of the twelve. That is history. That is roots. That is the one true Church.

The faith is about denying yourself. If you like your church’s teachings, and they were easy to accept, are you really denying yourself?

I think you need to read more of church history before making such a sweeping claim. If all you’ve read were written by the Catholic “fathers”, you’ve only heard one side of the story. The Bible also records the history of the early church, as well as its teachings, so you need to read that as well.

I wonder… what is so difficult on the teachings of the Catholic Church to accept? Sunday is the world’s rest day. Everyone celebrates Christmas. Everyone celebrates New Year’s. There’s lots of Catholic Churches around. You only go to the church for one hour every Sunday. You’d have plenty of company. Where lies the difficulty of accepting such a worldly faith may I ask?

 

[AlanF]

I don’t want to answer that. It’s best we let the mother church explain how their estranged daughters got into such confusion. Maybe the old saying applies: “Like mother, like daughter.”

Because they broke away fro the mother Church. The old saying does not apply.

The mother church is confused on how to understand its scriptures, so what do you expect from its daughters?

The mother Church understands the scriptures perfectly, it created the NT.

It has not even made up its mind on whether to believe in a literal 6-day creation, in Adam and Eve or evolution,

6-day creation is a clear contradiction of observable scientific nature. Genesis 1 can be interperted as figurative.

in the historicity of the biblical patriarchs and prophets,

The Church does not deny any biblical patriarchs or prophets. You’ll have to prove me wrong with Church documents.

and in most everything else in the Bible except for things not plainly taught there like the trinity, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, the “Immaculate Conception, praying to dead saints, etc.

It is sure about these things and all the things in the Bible, such as Christ dying for our sins, the Eucharist (somehing most protestants do not understand from Scripture) and the ressurection etc.

Have you ever wondered how the CCC could be so verbose yet so difficult to understand? Precisely because it lacks understanding of the Scriptures and so resorts to being ambiguous to play safe.

Perhaps it’s just you who doesn’t understand it, or you’d be a Catholic. The Church’s teachings are clear, she understands the Sciptures better than anyone else as I said before.

The result is a Babel of opinions from its laity on even the most basic of beliefs like the origins of life, the historicity of Adam and Eve and the many biblical personalities, the truthfulness or falsity of evolution, the existence of hell, etc.

The only thing Catholics might disagree on is creationg because it contradicts clear science and can be understood figuratively. No catholics dispute that God created life or the existence of Hell.

And have you heard that it’s thinking of changing the doctrine on limbo. When they finally make that official, we should know whether the RCC is really infallible on matters of faith, as we should be hearing a large rumble in the heavens of millions of little babies being moved to wherever the RCC says they should be placed.

Limbo is not an official doctrine taught by the Church; it is merely a hypothetical place suggested by some theologians.

To be quite honest I find this post to be a rather uninteligent and hateful post simply attacking the Christ’s Church with unfounded accusations.

 

[foundthelight]

Let me get this straight. There is nothing that is required for salvation that is not found in Scripture. Yet, we need both Scripture and Tradition to have the truth about salvation [about matters of faith]. If there is nothing outside of Scripture that is required for salvation, then the teachings in Tradition has nothing to do with salvation. Did I get that right?

Let me put it this way.

Most Protestants have a teaching from their **tradition **that says that Communion is only something done in memory of Christ.

I have a teaching from tradition which teaches that Christ meant what he said, that partaking of His Body and Blood are necessary to enter into Heaven. This is my Body… This is my Blood.

We both get this from the Bible. Our traditions are different. Only one can be correct.

The conclusion is that what is necessary for salvation is in the Bible. One needs Tradition to properly interpret what the Bible is telling us.

To quote Peter;

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

We learn from our pastors, Sunday school teachers, friends, parents and the Bible. We need tradition to properly interpret what the Bible is saying.

 

[po18guy]

Did I mistate something? I don’t have the refernce handy but am sure that your catechism says as much that it’s possible for even non-Christians to be saved.

I’ll try to post this later.

Invincible ignorance. It may also apply to those who claim Christ, but reject the authority which He alone gave His church.

 

[po18guy]

I think you need to read more of church history before making such a sweeping claim.(Huh?) If all you’ve read were written by the Catholic “fathers”, you’ve only heard one side of the story. The Bible (We read scripture! And, we hear more scripture at mass than any other “church”) also records the history of the early church, as well as its teachings, so you need to read that as well. (I accept your insult and joyfully provide you my beard to pluck)

I wonder… what is so difficult on the teachings of the Catholic Church to accept? (Well, you don’t accept them!) Sunday is the world’s rest day. Everyone celebrates Christmas. (Better check with the Adventists on that) Everyone celebrates New Year’s.(Huh?) There’s lots of Catholic Churches around. (That’s because it’s the universal church, covering the earth) You only go to the church for one hour every Sunday. (Not quite!) You’d have plenty of company. Where lies the difficulty of accepting such a worldly (Please, no insults) faith may I ask?

Regarding your unfounded assertions, I have and I have. Continuity is the key. Denial of self means the acceptance of church teachings. Have you not read the various threads here? Many Catholics have struggled for years with church teaching, all of which is consistent with its own writings - canonized or not. Don’t you flat out refuse to deny yourself and yield to the Holy Spirit as He has taught His one Church. You have just described a communal gathering of like believers, who struggle with holiness.

Is a church supposed to whip and beat you before its genuine?

 

[guanophore]

If all you’ve read were written by the Catholic "fathers", you’ve only heard one side of the story. The Bible also records the history of the early church, as well as its teachings, so you need to read that as well.

Did you not realize that the Catholic Church wrote the NT?

I wonder… what is so difficult on the teachings of the Catholic Church to accept? Sunday is the world’s rest day. Everyone celebrates Christmas. Everyone celebrates New Year’s. There’s lots of Catholic Churches around. You only go to the church for one hour every Sunday. You’d have plenty of company. Where lies the difficulty of accepting such a worldly faith may I ask?

Are you saying that Catholics observe the Sabbath on the wrong day?

Are you saying that it is wrong to celebrate the day of Jesus’ birth?

New Year is a secular holiday. Catholics go to Mass because we like to start it out right.

It is true that there are far too many Catholics who only celebrate their faith one hour a week. This is tragic. However, you cannot blame the Church for people being lazy about their spiritual development and devotions.

What do you think is “worldly” about the Catholic faith?

 

[savedsinner]

Where??? Where does it say “Holy Mother Church”? Or better still “Roman Catholic Church”? Or “Catholic Church”? Or “Holy Catholic Church”?

You should say: “We interpret ‘the church’ to mean the Roman Catholic Church.”

How many churches were around from the beginning which claim to have Peter as their first leader, and then can show an unbroken chain of leaders from Peter?
Jesus didn’t start two churches, he did not start three, three hundred, three thousand, or 33 thousand churches. He started one church.

Can the leader of your particular denomination trace apostolic succession right back to Peter without having broken with the original church somewhere in history?

 

[Pwrlftr]

I take exception to your entire post, however I will focus on this one point.

I, and all Catholics, have accepted and publicly proclaimed Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. None can be saved without this. To make such a statement about us just shows your ignorance. You are a product of what you have been taught. A product of the *Traditions *of your church.

Instead of telling us what we believe, why don’t you ask us? Perhaps you will learn that some of the traditions which you have been taught are false.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC 846 - Outside the Church there is no salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (LG 14)

CCC 847 - **This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. **(LG 16)

Does the above not affirm what I said earlier?