Sola Scriptura

[Dogface_Soldier]

unfortunately, the criteria you have enumerated are way to inclusive, and, much more significantly, are not independently verifiable: they permit too much, and the do not allow for the objective determination of truth.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?

Mohammed claimed to be a prophet of God. So did Confucius. So did Joseph Smith.

1. Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?

This presumes the veracity of the book in question. I think everyone will agree that a mountain being picked up and moving is miraculous (Jesus suggested as much). Mohammed claims that this happened; because the Quran contains miracle accounts, it follows, by your criterion, that Mohammed’s claims are authentic.

1. Does the book tell the truth about God, without error, falsehoods or contradiction?

Again, this presumes an accurate description of God, and his characteristics. How could you possibly have this description if you haven’t yet determined authentic accounts of God? The Analects, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and even Star Wars have internally coherent, consistent accounts of a god.

1. Does the book manifest a divine capacity to transform lives?

how could you possibly verify this? How could you exclude the purported transfomative capacities of other books?

1. Was the book accepted as God’s Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

Quran = yes
Bhagavad Gita = Yes
Book of Mormon = Yes
Jude = No
Hebrews = No
Epistles of Peter = No
Hermas’ Shepherd = Yes
1 - 4 Maccabees = Yes

A good example of the last was Peter confirming Pauls writings as being inspired by God.

Again, this presumes that Peter’s writings are authoritative? Who said that they were?

In other words, God’s Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception–it “stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89)–and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

Who declared the Psalms authoritative?

Blessings!

And with your spirit!

 

[guanophore]

T**here were some sources cited, some copy and paste w/o source and I also edit things for my own, but with that said; we have Elvis to cite sources for everybody. Some cites i use allow permission and encourage to use their material. Since you are familiar with the passages because of your time spent in the bush; perhaps you would like to cite the source. Also, if it is a website link; that would be “said” source.

I know you are trying to be charitable; but at the same time, don’t be a hypocrite.

Who Guanophore has not copy and pasted to assist their point without always, 100%, citing the source among you, let him {be the} first to throw a stone at me.

God bless you and hope you all have enjoyed the 4th of July weekend where ever you are!**

Indeed, I am speaking of experience.

It behooves all of us to help one another follow the forum rules. It makes discussion a better experience for all of us.

You did not post the website link for the anti-Catholic site from which the quotes came. Perhaps you refrained because you have read the forum rules, and you know this is a violation here. Perhaps you plagiarized someone else who plagariazed, and don’t know that the material was cut and pasted from an anticatholic website. What I do know is that you have posted large quotes of material written by someone else without a citation. I am encouraging you to correct this oversight.

 

[teak421]

I don’t think it’s quite the slam dunk as you make it out.

For example, after Hippo and Carthage which were provinical councils with no authority to settle the issue of the canon, Augustine wrote:

Certainly it appears that Augustine who accepted the canonical status of the dc’s recognized that Hippo and Carthage had no authority to settle the matter.

The Vulgate which the church sent out contained Jerome’s prologues which were very negative regarding the canonical status of the dc’s.

The gloss oridinaire (the main scriptural commentary of the middle ages) rejected the canonical status of the dc’s and instead accepted Jerome’s canon.

Even at Trent we see debate as to the status of the dc’s.

The point being that the canonical status of the dc’s was not an issue that was settled until the time of the reformation. Some fathers and theologians accepted the dc’s some didn’t but the issue was far from a settled issue between the time of councils of Hippo and Carthage and Trent.

Please stop quoting Augy… He clearly held beliefs that were based off of Tradition. I’ve already provided a list of those doctrines. He was not a subscriber to Sola Scriptura, he was however in love with Scripture, as we all should be.

Additionally, we’re talking about Sola Scriptura, not the Bible canon.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

I have never said that Augustine said everything was in the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not say that everything is in the Bible. It says that everything necessary is in the Bible in a way that can be understood easily. That is what Augustine and Chrysostom said in the quotes I gave. They may accept other things that are not in scripture and in fact I gave a quote from Chrysostom where he says there are such things. However, that is not the same as saying that tradition is infallible or that it is necessary. Yes, you can find things in the fathers that appear Catholic, just as I can find things that appear Protestant or don’t agree with Catholicism. I think that we all read them through the bias of our own belief system.

Carl,

This makes no sense. I’ve listed some very core Catholic beliefs which are railed on by the Protestants. And, Agy believed in them. If he did not believe in Tradition, WHY did he believe in those doctrines that Protestants say was NOT in the Bible?

It makes no sense… Cya.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

As a Lutheran, I hear Catholics say Luther wanted to remove the New Testament Books all the time; however, I believe it is an urban myth. I have never seen anything quoted beyond the prefaces in Luther’s Bible which if people would read them instead of taking short quotes specifically says he does not desire to remove them.

Unless you have an original source quote, which if you do, I would much appreciate, I’m afraid I have to see you as mostly a parrot.

Especially since you include the modern theory of the Council of Jamnia which Luther knew nothing of, and which now has been pretty well discounted for lack of evidence. But sure is popular among Catholics.

This is off topic… Start a new thread about Luther wanting to remove James. Apologize about bringing that up…

This is about Sola Scriptura… Cya!

• Michael

 

[estesbob]

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3. Does the book tell the truth about God, without error, falsehoods or contradiction?
4. Does the book manifest a divine capacity to transform lives?
5. Was the book accepted as God’s Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?
   A good example of the last was Peter confirming Pauls writings as being inspired by God.

!

Who determined these criteria?

 

[teak421]

continued

Cyprian Epistle 67, Paragraph 3
newadvent.org/fathers/050667.htm

Athanasius Festal Letters, Number 39
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html?highlight=judith#highlight

Pope Gregory the Great An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 3, Book 19, Paragraph 34
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book19.html

Note Gregory is referring to 1 Maccabees.

**Jerome ** Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html

Didache, Chapter 15
newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Apostolic Constitutions Book VI, Section IV, Paragraph 23
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.vii.iv.html

Could you please refrain from posting quotes that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura? Would love your opinion on how, why Sola Scriptura is valid. Also, could you please highlight the quotes that deal with our issue at hand.

Thanks!

• Michael

 

[estesbob]

This is off topic… Start a new thread about Luther wanting to remove James. Apologize about bringing that up…

This is about Sola Scriptura… Cya!

• Michael

I assume that meansa that you can not expalin how Sola Scriptura fits into the framewok of its primary proponent wanting to thorw out books that didnt support his theology?

 

[teak421]

Thanks for your comments.

My disdain is for religious absolutes, not divine or Godly absolutes. Religious absolutes are the doctrines, rules, and traditions of men, that God is often given credit.

Even our many bible translations have men’s fingerprints all over them. Godly absolutes include his nature, purpose, and the Trinity, as we understand it.

As great a man as Paul was, he was still a man. I don’t consider his epistles as absolutes and I doubt he would be happy with the way we exalt and glorify his words and letters as if they were divine.

What do you consider as absolutes? How do you know that your absolutes are correct? Can you list a few of God’s absolutes that you feel are valid? And, of those that you think are valid, how do you know that you have not imprinted your fingerprint on them?

Do you believe that you have the authority and educational background to determine which doctrines are valid or not? That’s what it sounds like and if I am wrong, please forgive me…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

****First, you don’t even know your own history concerning your Church and the Apocrypha or you chose pick out the certain parts and leave out others; they were used by some for devotional purposes and not by others within your own Church, some considered them inspired and others did not within your own Church; but when the reformation came and and challenged the issues of praying to and for the dead, the perpetual virginity and immaculate conception and other challenges were made to the Church; this is when they decided to hastily Canonize 11 of the 14 Apocrypha books. This way anyone who denied the books as inspired and the issues contained within; then the Church pronounced anathema on them. There were many people martyred because they disagreed with the Councils decision.

Furthermore, from the Jewish perspectives the Hebrew canon was closed around 300 BC and did not include any of the extra books. The earliest Septuagint did not include the Apocrypha and overtime it was added.

I believe the Council of Trent was the best thing that happened to Chrsitianity for reasons I will not elaborate, but I thank God for it and am thankful for those who were willing to give their lives in defending God’s word.

---

God bless; got to run!

Tanner,

Are you SURE that the Septuagint that Paul and the rest of the Apostles used did not include books such as Wisdom?? What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Why do you believe in that doctrine? What scripture evidence do you have for this doctrine? Thanks…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

I don’t think it’s quite the slam dunk as you make it out.

For example, after Hippo and Carthage which were provinical councils with no authority to settle the issue of the canon, Augustine wrote:

Certainly it appears that Augustine who accepted the canonical status of the dc’s recognized that Hippo and Carthage had no authority to settle the matter.

The Vulgate which the church sent out contained Jerome’s prologues which were very negative regarding the canonical status of the dc’s.

The gloss oridinaire (the main scriptural commentary of the middle ages) rejected the canonical status of the dc’s and instead accepted Jerome’s canon.

Even at Trent we see debate as to the status of the dc’s.

The point being that the canonical status of the dc’s was not an issue that was settled until the time of the reformation. Some fathers and theologians accepted the dc’s some didn’t but the issue was far from a settled issue between the time of councils of Hippo and Carthage and Trent.

What does this have to do with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Could you please put forward your argument (position) as to why Sola Scriptura is valid and not a man made tradition that gained wide popularity after the reformation.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Guanaphore,

From the time of Carthage and Hippo up until Trent there is plenty of evidence that the dc’s were considered apocryphal.

The Vulgate was sent out by the church along with the prologues to the dc’s which expressed Jerome’s concerns about their canonocity. In the section under OT canon at newadvent.org there is a section stating that Jerome’s prolouges caused many to doubt the canonical status of the dc’s.

Augustine didn’t see the councils of Carthage and Hippo as settling the case. In fact he wrote:

Augustine gave advice to determine which books were truly canonical because even after Carthage and Hippo there was no consensus. He certainly did not appeal to either Carthage or Hippo as the final say and why should he since the two councils were provincial?

The major scripture commentary of the middle ages, the glossa ordinaire, relegated the dc’s as having a lower place than the canonical scriptures.

Even at Trent there was debate as to the canonical status of the dc’s.

As to whether any bible before the reformation lacked the dc’s, that’s not really the issue is it? It’s my understanding that Luther’s bible contained a section for the dc’s but it’s clear that he rejected their canonocity. Simply including a particular book between two covers isn’t what’s important with regards to canonocity or else you would have no problem with Luther’s bible.

What’s improtant is how the books, in this case the dc’s, are presented within a certain bible. The Vulgate rejected their canonocity. The glossa rejected their canonicty as well as several other commentaries published between the time of Carthage/Hippo and the reformation.

Is there a major bible or scripture commentary published (published may be a bad term) between Carthage/Hippo that gave full canonical status to the dc’s?

Jerome fell in line with the Church, yes he had concerns, but he followed the Church and accepted all the books. Tell me, what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Can you please put forward an argument that is reasonable? Thanks.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Look all you can do is “parrot” the revisionist history invented by men; you are not interested in true history; only the parts that support your preconceived notions invented by men. I’ll give you one example the Septuagint, evolutionized and did not originally contain the Deuterocanonical; we know the Jews as far back as 300 BC rejected the additions ; then Jerome came to town. We will all live by the Truth or die by the Truth; I chose life. I am really out of here this time for everyones sake and my own sanity.

I know this has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura, but at the time of the Apolosltes, their version of the Septuagint had ALL the books.

What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura. What is your argument for Sola Scriptura?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

I assume that meansa that you can not expalin how Sola Scriptura fits into the framewok of its primary proponent wanting to thorw out books that didnt support his theology?

I’m saying that I believe Luther was wrong for throwing out those books… but, how does it prove or disprove Sola Scriptura? I would LOVE to see a reasonable argument put forward by our Protestant friends as to why Sola Scriptura is valid. Does this help their cause?

• Michael

 

[estesbob]

I’m saying that I believe Luther was wrong for throwing out those books… but, how does it prove or disprove Sola Scriptura? I would LOVE to see a reasonable argument put forward by our Protestant friends as to why Sola Scriptura is valid. Does this help their cause?

• Michael

I deleted my post as I misundersttod what you were saying. Sorry about that!

 

[teak421]

I deleted my post as I misundersttod what you were saying. Sorry about that!

I do that all the time…

• Michael

 

[SemperReformada]

Jerome fell in line with the Church, yes he had concerns, but he followed the Church and accepted all the books. Tell me, what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Can you please put forward an argument that is reasonable? Thanks.

• Michael

No, I don’t think Jerome ever accepted the dc’s.

Anyway, the issue has little bearing on the stated purpose of the thread but as is usual, these threads take many twists and turns.

 

[teak421]

No, I don’t think Jerome ever accepted the dc’s.

Anyway, the issue has little bearing on the stated purpose of the thread but as is usual, these threads take many twists and turns.

These threads seem to do that.

• Michael

 

[SyCarl]

Could you please refrain from posting quotes that have nothing to do with Sola Scriptura? Would love your opinion on how, why Sola Scriptura is valid. Also, could you please highlight the quotes that deal with our issue at hand.

Thanks!

• Michael

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you but I had to work today.

I cited fathers on matters on other than sola scriptura because you had suggested that if I accepted what Augustine and others said about scripture that I had to accept what he taught on other things. In the quotes I provided the fathers say things that are contrary to present Catholic teaching. Do you accept what they say on these points because you accept what they say on other points? If not you are trying to hold me to a different standard than yourself.

I also included the quotes because you indicate that sola scriptura leads to a great diversity of interpretations and doctrines. The quotes illustrate that there was also a great variety of opinions in the early church.

 

[teak421]

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you but I had to work today.

I cited fathers on matters on other than sola scriptura because you had suggested that if I accepted what Augustine and others said about scripture that I had to accept what he taught on other things. In the quotes I provided the fathers say things that are contrary to present Catholic teaching. Do you accept what they say on these points because you accept what they say on other points? If not you are trying to hold me to a different standard than yourself.

I also included the quotes because you indicate that sola scriptura leads to a great diversity of interpretations and doctrines. The quotes illustrate that there was also a great variety of opinions in the early church.

What is YOUR opinion on Sola Scriptura? How did you arrive to conclude that it is a valid doctrine? What scriptural and historical evidence helped you?

Thanks…

• Michael