Sola Scriptura

[twb1621]

(A Treatise on Faith and the Creed, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9)

He says there is no mother of God. Did the council make Augustine a heretic? Yes, Augustine died before the doctrine was defined but are we to suppose that God requires us to believe more than Augustine did? I cannot accept that.

Below is the excerpt you are referring to
Augustine
“Neither is there anything to compel us to a denial of the mother of the Lord, in the circumstance that this word was spoken by Him: Woman, what have I to do with you? Mine hour is not yet come. But He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him, the part of whose personal majesty (cujus majestatis personam) He was preparing to show forth in the turning of water into wine.”

In today’s terms, He, Jesus, encourages the understanding that in His works He will be living in accordance with the Will of the Father toward the salvation of all man, just as we who have no mother and father or family when it comes to making a choice between family and God are expected to choose God.

CCC… Part 1 ; Profession of Faith -True God and True Man
The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90

 

[ckempston]

A mistake you are making is that we can use the Church Fathers for guidance, they are not infallible. So it is distinctly possible that the fathers could have held different opinions at differnt times. We must look at the Fathers for consencus, and view their wtitings individually.

Of course, you would only push this requirement on a Protestant. If an ECF makes a vague, totally unclear statement that could possibly support a Catholic doctrine, it’s held up like Gospel. If a Protestant appeals to an ECF statement that is clear as day, oh!, suddenly, we have to look for concensus and some equally vague Sacred Tradition.

Your statement, and others like it, is too vague to be meaningful, just like infallability itself. If we can’t trust a Bishop of the 2nd Century (Irenaeus), who was only one person removed from the Apostles, then I’m not sure who we can trust.

 

[twb1621]

Of course, you would only push this requirement on a Protestant. If an ECF makes a vague, totally unclear statement that could possibly support a Catholic doctrine, it’s held up like Gospel. If a Protestant appeals to an ECF statement that is clear as day, oh!, suddenly, we have to look for concensus and some equally vague Sacred Tradition…

You did not respond to this so perhaps you missed the post but as you raise the matter based on Irenaeus again, I will repost for you;

I am glad you respect the Church Fathers. This is a limited group of excerpts but it may help you. Lets look at the Church Fathers starting with Irenaeus and Whether Scripture should be Stayed with Sacred Tradition and the Teachings of the Church or performed as Sola Scriptura;

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” *Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200). *

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” *Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230). *

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” *Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256). *

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355). *

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

There is a great deal more c**ontinued at scripturecatholic.com/scr…ml#tradition-I

 

[ckempston]

You did not respond to this so perhaps you missed the post but as you raise the matter based on Irenaeus again, I will repost for you;

Thanks, I was busy for a few days and didn’t check in very much. If I missed something, I assure you it was unintentional.

I am glad you respect the Church Fathers. This is a limited group of excerpts but it may help you. Lets look at the Church Fathers starting with Irenaeus and Whether Scripture should be Stayed with Sacred Tradition and the Teachings of the Church or performed as Sola Scriptura;

OK, but for the record, I don’t hold to SS as most Protestants would understand it. I readily admit my biases and preconceived notions, and I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that Scripture just magically interprets itself.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine thatout the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Ok, how does this help your position exactly? Of course Tradition and Scripture were appealed to in his day. The point was, their testimony was THE SAME. This cannot be said of the current state of Catholic doctrine.

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” *Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200). *

Exactly. The only problem for you is “the rule” does not change and get constantly added to as the Catholic church has done. Your (mis)interpretation of Irenaeus’ meaning would make him contradict himself when he says that revelation is complete, and verified in writing. Tradition served to verify the Scriptures, and vice versa. Tradition is not something that grows independently of Scripture.

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” *Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230). *

Repeat above comment.

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” *Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256). *

Interestingly, the Catholic church does not agree with this stance that was unanymously held by the Fathers.

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *

More appeal to the importance of the scriptures. Again, not sure how this helps the Catholic position.

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355). *

True.

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

100% implies that the revelation was complete at the time of the Apostles, just like Jesus said it would be (“you will be led into ALL truth”). This is not complicated. Either Jesus told the truth, and all truth was revealed to the Apostles, or Jesus lied, in which case, our faith is pretty meaningless. There is quite obviously no real dilemma here. Jesus did not lie, and the Catholic church has not continued to reveal truth to us down through the ages.

There is a great deal more c**ontinued at scripturecatholic.com/scr…ml#tradition-I

I’m sure they are equally taken out of context and misapplied.

 

[SyCarl]

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *

Let’s look at the larger statement made by Cyril of which the above has been selectively edited.

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Cyril indeed says to keep what the Church teaches. By what the Church teaches he means the creed. And what is the purpose of the creed? It is to summarize Scripture since not all can read or have the time to read. They should expect each part of the articles of faith to be confirmed by Scripture. The articles of faith cannot be changed and embrace all the knowledge of godliness in both the Old and New Testaments. Note he says that the whole doctrine has been taught, it is a complete teaching of the faith and all the knowledge is encompassed by it.

He doesn’t seem to leave any room for additions or development of doctrine.

 

[golfjack]

I have a question pertaining to this discussion. I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow any private interpretation of scripture. If this is so, how do I know that Catholic interpretation is correct? Why not depend on the Holy Spirit, who is our guide?
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have a question pertaining to this discussion. I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow any private interpretation of scripture. If this is so, how do I know that Catholic interpretation is correct? Why not depend on the Holy Spirit, who is our guide?

Peace,   Golfjack

When you have two different people, with two different interpretations, both claiming guidance by the Holy Spirit, who is correct?

There are many denominations, all with slight to great differences in doctrines, based on someone’s private interpretation. Which one is correct? Who has the authority to say they are correct?

Where is sola scriptura taught in scriptures?

Why did God inspire it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth instead of scriptures?

When offenses occur, why did Jesus teach to take disputes to the Church, instead of scriptures?

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.

 

[golfjack]

Folks, why do we have the Word of God?
Peace, Golfjack

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Folks, why do we have the Word of God?

     Peace,   Golfjack

The Bible is the inerrant, inspired, God breathed, Word of God. That is not all God gave us though. Please provide scriptures that states, all one needs is the Bible.

 

[CWBetts]

Folks, why do we have the Word of God?

     Peace,   Golfjack

Better question: Why do you only use part of the Word of God?

 

[Wild_Boar]

The Bible is the inerrant, inspired, God breathed, Word of God. That is not all God gave us though. Please provide scriptures that states, all one needs is the Bible.

God gave us heretics. Should we accept their testimony?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God gave us heretics. Should we accept their testimony?

I guess, since you answered a question with a question, it’s safe to assume you cannot produce any scriptures supporting “sola scriptura”.

We know Christ said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, yet Protestants are ready to consider that the actions of corrupt men somehow did.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Doesn’t these instructions from Christ insinuate that God can protect His truth, even through sinful men? I believe it does.

God gave men free will. He did not give us heretics. Through their own free will, and private interpretation of scriptures, they started teaching false doctrines.

The subject of this thread is “sola scriptura” or the Bible is the sole authority, but the Bible does not list the canon of itself, meaning there had to be an authority outside the Bible to define the canon. That authority was the Apostolic Church that Christ built.

Catholic and Protestants believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired, Word of God, yet Protestants reject what some scriptures clearly tell us.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church

If we believe God inspired the scriptures, one has to ask why God inspired it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth instead of scriptures?

If we believe God inspired the scriptures, one has to ask why God inspired it be written that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known…through the Church, instead of scriptures?

If we believe God inspired the scriptures, one has to ask why God did not inspire it be written that the Bible was the sole authority, if that’s was His intentions?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I have a question pertaining to this discussion. I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow any private interpretation of scripture. If this is so, how do I know that Catholic interpretation is correct? Why not depend on the Holy Spirit, who is our guide?

Peace,   Golfjack

The Church DOES allow private interpretation of Scripture. In some cases, where the Church’s doctrines are upheld by Scripture, it has been interpreted by the Church, and we hold to those interpretations. However, the great majority of Scripture is not in this category.

We should depend on the Holy Spirit guiding us when reading Scripture as it was meant to be read. That is; as the written word of God which was handed down from the Church, and which Church has the final word on its interpretation. We must NOT ASSUME we have the Holy Spirit as our guide, merely because we are reading the Scriptures. It says in Scripture itself that Jesus had “to open” the Scripture meaning to his own disciples, and others as well.

St. Peter talks about those who “wrest” the Scriptures to their own destruction. Be assured, those interpreters assumed they had the Holy Spirit. The very idea of “wresting” is taking by violence. That is exactly the spirit of Sola Scriptura. Those believers feel they can “wrest” the Word of God, away from His Church, just because they can read!

The Scripture says, The Holy Spirit blows where He will, no one knowing from whence He comes, or whither He goes. The Holy Spirit, being God, is a person, not a “headlight” automatically lighting the pages of Scripture. God wished the Scriptures to be vague, incomplete, and hidden in meaning for very profound reasons, and so they are. They are deceived that believe the Scriptures are self-evident, self-interpreting road maps to salvation. Salvation comes from His Church, not sola scriptura.

Lastly, we can trust the Church of Christ completely. Jesus has promised to be with HIS CHURCH all the way to the end of time. He promised he would not leave HIS CHURCH orphans. With Jesus as head of His Mystical Body, the Church, why would we have any reason to worry about the Church’s interpretation?

 

[twb1621]

Thanks, I was busy for a few days and didn’t check in very much. If I missed something, I assure you it was unintentional.

OK, but for the record, I don’t hold to SS as most Protestants would understand it. I readily admit my biases and preconceived notions, and I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that Scripture just magically interprets itself.

Ok, how does this help your position exactly? Of course Tradition and Scripture were appealed to in his day. The point was, their testimony was THE SAME. This cannot be said of the current state of Catholic doctrine.

Don’t just fire off unbased claims. Again, support your claim if you have credible resources.

Exactly. The only problem for you is “the rule” does not change and get constantly added to as the Catholic church has done. Your (mis)interpretation of Irenaeus’ meaning would make him contradict himself when he says that revelation is complete, and verified in writing. Tradition served to verify the Scriptures, and vice versa. Tradition is not something that grows independently of Scripture.

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” *Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200). *

The rules may be strengthened but never reversed or Changed especially the teaching of the Chruch as you claim. Show me where the Church changed or preaches against the teachings of God then. It doesn’t.

Repeat above comment.

Show me where the Church changed or preaches against the teachings of God then. It doesn’t

Interestingly, the Catholic church does not agree with this stance that was unanymously held by the Fathers.

How so? I am interested in knowing where you get that…

More appeal to the importance of the scriptures. Again, not sure how this helps the Catholic position.

Nothing was said in any way diminishing the importance of Scripture, but that Scripture and Tradition must accompany each other;
“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church (taught along with the scriptures), and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350). *

True.

100% implies that the revelation was complete at the time of the Apostles, just like Jesus said it would be (“you will be led into ALL truth”). This is not complicated. Either Jesus told the truth, and all truth was revealed to the Apostles, or Jesus lied, in which case, our faith is pretty meaningless. There is quite obviously no real dilemma here. Jesus did not lie, and the Catholic church has not continued to reveal truth to us down through the ages.

Well that was a wildly twisted interpretation. Look again, your eyes must be stopping at the word “Scriptural”

"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

I’m sure they are equally taken out of context and misapplied.

 

[twb1621]

Let’s look at the larger statement made by Cyril of which the above has been selectively edited.

(Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 5, Paragraph 12)
newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

Cyril indeed says to keep what the Church teaches. By what the Church teaches he means the creed. And what is the purpose of the creed? It is to summarize Scripture since not all can read or have the time to read.

The creed is a profession of faith in the teachings of God and in the Catholic Faith. “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”, do you?
They should expect each part of the articles of faith to be confirmed by Scripture. Where do you see anything that says it is limited to only what is in Scripture?

The articles of faith cannot be changed and embrace all the knowledge of godliness in both the Old and New Testaments. Note he says that the whole doctrine has been taught, it is a complete teaching of the faith and all the knowledge is encompassed by it.

He doesn’t seem to leave any room for additions or development of doctrine.

How do you think he received the recognition to make such a statement? And what is the creed? I mean the Whole creed?

You are very selective in what you choose to believe of written word.

 

[joemccarron]

This is an interesting discussion. However the tone seems a bit harsh at times.

I have a few questions. I’m not sure of the context of the quotes from the ECFs, that our protestant brothers point out. In one quote I think Irenaeus was saying that we can’t know what God was doing before he created the earth, because scripture doesn’t say. Perhaps this was in response to Gnosticism - I don’t know. I think the church would take the same position now if someone started to say what God was doing before scripture explains this to us.

But if the scripture itself says that church teaching is important and indeed that the church will have binding and loosing authority then would the ECFs disagree? Did any church Fathers maintain that the church was not Guided by the holy spirit or that it was not apostolic. It seems to me these quotes are not really dealing with the issue of church authority versus scripture authority - as Protestants like to frame the issue.

The early creeds seem talk more of the church than of scriptures. Do any early creeds say we must believe one thing or another about scripture? I think the only thing we must believe is that Jesus fulfilled the scriptures.

Perhaps also by implication. We must believe the church is holy and so when the church teaches that the scripture is XYZ we must listen.

Do Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church? Is the idea that the Church has abandoned the Holy Spirit? Is there really a difference - either way the belief is that the Holy Spirit is no longer there. If that is true would it not be the case that Satan has prevailed against the church? Is this not contrary to scripture?

I think in order to really support the claims of Protestants we should see some quotes from fathers saying abandon the teachings of the church and only follow scripture.

To say the traditions of the church and scripture were identical is hard to defend. They are consistent but they are not identical - otherwise the ECFs would find themselves simply making an identical copy of scripture every time they put pen to paper and discussing the faith. They didn’t.

I do think Sycarl (and perhaps some other protestants in this thread) asks a good question: why are Catholics today required to believe so much more than the early church fathers. I wonder if any of the ECFs would survive charges of heresy if they said what they said then, today. I do often with the church would give all the binding a rest and start doing some more loosing. But that is just me.

 

[golfjack]

PS, When you have two people claiming Holy Spirit guidance on scripture with different interpretations, first we always go to the Word of God to see who is correct. You see, there can different opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. Sometimes we as humans just miss the voice of the Holy Spirit. There is a big problem with Christians that are mind led. The Holy Spirit speaks to our spirits and not to our minds. The devil has access to our minds and not to our recreated spirits.

As far as denominations go, I don’t believe God is pleased with that and was never met to be. I believe God wants a Word and Holy Ghost Church just like the church in the Book of Acts.

Just like the word Trinity, Sola-Scripture is not in the Bible. I think you Catholic’s have made that word to confuse people.

The Church is a pillar of truth if it’s based on God’s Word. ( Bible based church). Of course, sometimes we need correction in a church. The Bible says study and show thyself approved.
Peace, Golfjack

 

[joemccarron]

Just like the word Trinity, Sola-Scripture is not in the Bible. I think you Catholic’s have made that word to confuse people.

There are scriptures that tell us there is a Father Son and Holy Spirit, woudln’t you agree? PS wasn’t asking for you to find the word “sola-scripture,” he was asking you to find a passage from scripture supporting the claim made by those who believe sola-scripture.

 

[joemccarron]

The Church is a pillar of truth if it’s based on God’s Word. ( Bible based church). Of course, sometimes we need correction in a church.

Would you not agree that the church is a pillar of truth if it is guided by the holy spirit?

 

[SecretBeliever]

I’m fairly new here, not an expert on anything, but I think that if you’re going to argue about what the ECFs said – that we should trust Scripture, and they have also said that we should trust Tradition, then we need to do both. And that’s what only the Catholic Church does. Think about it. How upset would you be if you said two things that “seemed” opposite, and people kept on insisting that you said one thing OR the other, but not BOTH the things that you said. I’ve read a good description of how people refer to the way the Catholic Church looks at certain issues as not this OR that, but BOTH this AND that. (for you IT types out there, think of Boolean algebra!) Maybe you more knowledgeable Catholics could give more examples of this.

Golfjack, no offense, but I gotta say that your statement “When you have two people claiming Holy Spirit guidance on scripture with different interpretations, first we always go to the Word of God to see who is correct.” is EXACTLY why there is a problem with Protestant logic in the first place. Because you’ve got all kinds of different churches SINCERELY going to the Word of God to see who is correct, and about as many answers from each one stating that they are the church that is correct. I have NEVER seen an answer that resolves this problem satisfactorily. My own church does this (I’ve been attending a Lutheran church; the reason why is not relevant right now). So what I’m coming to understand now is this: You say, the Catholic Church is doing the exact same thing, so why should I believe it? --I’d say, which church has been around since the very time of Jesus Christ? Only the Catholic Church. :heaven: