sola scriptura

[Arizona_Samson]

Scripture verse for this, please.

**Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures** ~ 1 Cor 15:1-4

 

[Arizona_Samson]

How do you know something is God’s word to begin with?

Because the same self-attesting word of the God who proclaimed “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? (Jer 32:27) has declared it to be so.

You do realize that the Muslim argues that his book is the word proclaimed by the self attesting God, yes?

No.

What is your definition of a self-attesting God?

.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I completely agree, PR.

Solo Scriptura is not a practice or doctrine but rather a phrase coined to describe the mischaracterization of the tenets of **Sola **Scriptura. Namely the false belief that all we need for faith and practice is a Bible and the Holy Spirit apart from the church.

The tenets of Sola Scriptura do not deny that;

1. The church plays a critical role in our faith and practice.
2. Prior to inscripturation the Gospel was at one time proclaimed orally.

What Sola Scriptura does proclaim is;

1. All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.
2. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian Church.

 

[PRmerger]

**Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached **to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures ~ 1 Cor 15:1-4

Catholics find those verses very descriptive of Sacred Tradition.

They support Sola Scriptura as much as they support the doctrine of purgatory, Samson.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Because the same self-attesting word of the God who proclaimed “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? (Jer 32:27) has declared it to be so.

Ok, I really want to know why Protestants keep arguing this way.

Do you realize that you cannot argue that a book is divinely inspired because of what the book says? It is circular reasoning.

No.

What is your definition of a self-attesting God?
.

Does it really matter? Because whatever that definition maybe, it will be something you lifted right out of the Bible i.e. the book you already believe as the Word of God. Hence your reasoning will be circular.

The Muslim does the same thing. He just lifts a whole bunch of quotes from his own book and defines what a self attesting God means too in such a way that the Koran is upheld.

Both of you will have proven or demonstrated nothing because both claims are based on circular reasoning. And circular reasoning, not just in the case of religion but in case of all things, is invalid.

 

[PRmerger]

**Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached **to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

Incidentally, Paul preached in one temple for the period of 3 months, so clearly all of what he preached could not have been contained in the Scriptures.

And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.—Acts 19:8

Oral Tradition is required for that, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Because the same self-attesting word of the God who proclaimed “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? (Jer 32:27) has declared it to be so.

How does, “My breath is offensive to my wife” attest to being the word of God, Samson?

 

[Arizona_Samson]

I completely agree, PR.

Solo Scriptura is not a practice or doctrine but rather a phrase coined to describe the mischaracterization of the tenets of **Sola **Scriptura. Namely the false belief that all we need for faith and practice is a Bible and the Holy Spirit apart from the church.

The tenets of Sola Scriptura do not deny that;

1. The church plays a** critical role **in our faith and practice.
2. Prior to inscripturation the Gospel at one time was proclaimed orally.

What Sola Scriptura does proclaim is;

1. All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.
2. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian Church.

My apologies, friends. I didn’t mean to quote myself but my lack of sleep led to a couple of bad typos of my post #770.

By the time I noticed it the system wouldn’t allow me to edit it so I’ve bolded my corrections.

Have a great evening and to all a goodnight.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

They support Sola Scriptura as much as they support the doctrine of purgatory, Samson.

I didn’t claim the verse supported Sola Scriptura, PR.

I offered the verse in response to your question of “Scripture and verse please” (post 773) corresponding to my statement of;

All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I didn’t claim the verse supported Sola Scriptura, PR.

I offered the verse in response to your question of “Scripture and verse please” (post 773) corresponding to my statement of;

All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.

But what Scripture? How do you know what that passage is specifically referring to as Scripture? Is it the same set of books you have? Maybe its only speaking of the OT Torah? Maybe its just referring to itself? How do you know?

Those who try to find a passage to support the idea that “all you need to follow Christ is Scripture” forget that the Bible is 73 books (or 66 in your case). If you find a passage in one book, you still don’t know if it is referring to the rest as well or just to itself. To apply it to all, you first need certainty that the collection you have is indeed Scripture to begin with.

 

[berrytc44]

There are some serious questions that need to be asked and answered on the Catholic side of this issue. #1 Why doesn’t the Scriptures give us explicit teachings about the authority of the Catholic Church? #2 The Roman Catholic Church has never defined a single word that any apostle spoke that is outside of Scripture. With that knowledge in mind, how can we trust they know anything about traditions outside of Scripture? The third question comes from my blog post at AnotherChristianBlog.org:

Mark 7: 8-13 says:

7:8 ‘Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.’ 9 He also said to them, ‘You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.’ -NET

Here we see a very interesting interaction between Jesus and the religious authorities. The corban rule was a Jewish tradition that allowed people to give their funds to the temple instead of caring for their parents. In the Jewish culture “honoring your father and mother” meant more than simply respecting their opinions or correction. It was a life-long commitment to care for one’s parents in their old age. This meant that funds would go to caring for them when they could not earn a day’s wage. This rule was a tradition passed down and the jewish authorities claimed it was oral tradition. Well, Jesus corrects the religious teachers by telling them that they “nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.“

Jesus admits that this tradition was handed down through the generations however, he gives us direction in how to test traditions. If a tradition nullifies the word of God then we are to reject it. So, if the Roman Catholic church teaches traditions no where found in Scripture or contradict Scripture then why should I be bound to their doctrines? Jesus wouldn’t have accepted them on the basis of his own teaching shown by his condemnation of the corban rule.

-Travis

 

[CopticChristian]

There are some serious questions that need to be asked and answered on the Catholic side of this issue.** #1 Why doesn’t the Scriptures give us explicit teachings about the authority of the Catholic Church? #2 The Roman Catholic Church has never defined a single word that any apostle spoke that is outside of Scripture. **With that knowledge in mind, how can we trust they know anything about traditions outside of Scripture? The third question comes from my blog post at AnotherChristianBlog.org:

Mark 7: 8-13 says:

7:8 ‘Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.’ 9 He also said to them, ‘You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.’ -NET

Here we see a very interesting interaction between Jesus and the religious authorities. The corban rule was a Jewish tradition that allowed people to give their funds to the temple instead of caring for their parents. In the Jewish culture “honoring your father and mother” meant more than simply respecting their opinions or correction. It was a life-long commitment to care for one’s parents in their old age. This meant that funds would go to caring for them when they could not earn a day’s wage. This rule was a tradition passed down and the jewish authorities claimed it was oral tradition. Well, Jesus corrects the religious teachers by telling them that they “nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.“

Jesus admits that this tradition was handed down through the generations however, he gives us direction in how to test traditions. If a tradition nullifies the word of God then we are to reject it. So, if the Roman Catholic church teaches traditions no where found in Scripture or contradict Scripture then why should I be bound to their doctrines? Jesus wouldn’t have accepted them on the basis of his own teaching shown by his condemnation of the corban rule.

-Travis

Travis,

Are you referring to the Scripture that the OHCAC says is Scripture or to the Protestant translation that is defecient and cannot be proved is Scripture?

What is it you believe that must be proved by Scripture and why is that only Scripture must prove anything?

The Scriptures that the OHCAC has only has kernels of information about the Catholic Church. Concerning the words of the Apostles what is it you believe that only words convey? Is it only by words that we communicate? If you answer yes then your thinking is void of how humans communicate and recieve information. Have you not heard, actions, speak louder than words? If they were baptizing babies, someone saw them baptizing babies and they said they should baptize babies, does a single word need to be recorded to continue that practice?

Jesus isn’t giving any test. Jesus is saying that a particular tradition like Sola or Solo Scirptura that is not found in any Bible I know of Violates Apostolic Tradition and teaching of the Church.

 

[SteveVH]

There are some serious questions that need to be asked and answered on the Catholic side of this issue. #1 Why doesn’t the Scriptures give us explicit teachings about the authority of the Catholic Church?

Let me be the first to welcome you to CAF. Now to your question. Teachings on the authority of the Catholic Church can be found here:

Matthew 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates his authority to the Apostles, the first leaders of the Catholic Church, which was known as “The Way” until around 100 A.D. when it was called Catholic.

John 20:23 - Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins.

1 Cor 11:23-24 - the power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)

Luke 10:16 - The power to speak with the voice of Christ

Matthew 18:18 - The authority to bind and loose, on earth and in heaven (legislate).

Matthew 18:17 - Power to discipline

Glad you asked.

#2 The Roman Catholic Church has never defined a single word that any apostle spoke that is outside of Scripture.

What do you mean “defined” a single word? For what definition are you looking?

With that knowledge in mind, how can we trust they know anything about traditions outside of Scripture? The third question comes from my blog post at AnotherChristianBlog.org:

You are on a Catholic forum. You can actually speak directly to us as Catholics rather than to some third person. Not quite sure why you are here. As to your blog, you should try to do at least some minimal research on what is meant by Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church before you start expounding upon it.

 

[guanophore]

Steve…okay, not according to the OCA website…heck they’re still undecided whether you have sacramrnts, but I am not going to argue the East/West differences. Let the EO do that. Regardless, differing dogma is differing dogma. I could go through the minutiae of describing just how similar Baptists and Presbyterians and Anglicans are, too. The point still stands. You have a double standard. One for self asserted apostolic churches and one for Protestants. You allow that the Spirit is leading them **but not us **because we disagree, even though yours disagree just as vociferously, if not more so. That’s your right, of course. I’m just pointing out that the statement doesn’t carry much consistent weight.

Actually, the CC teaches the opposite. To the extent that Protestant ecclesial communities retain the Apostolic faith, we most certainly affirm that the HS can, and does, work through through these communities to draw people to Himself.

The difference between what you believe and what we believe about this is that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit always leads to unity, that there is One Faith, and that the HS does not reveal things to one person contrary to what He has already revealed to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

People do just hand out bibles. Happens all the time. This discussion is getting tired. No one is going to convince the other of their position. It’s nice to discuss, but points and counter points were made several posts ago. This thread is just going in circles.

Yes, there are some that just hand out bibles, but the persons that do so belong, as you do, to ecclesial communities where peopel gather for fellowship, teaching, celebration etc. And from reading your own posts, it seems clear that you value your ecclesial community as a source for many things other than the distribution of bibles.

You may be getting “tired” of it,but it is our responsibility to point out this grave inconsistency as often as it appears.

 

[guanophore]

Fractured all over the place. To look at any one institution present today and say…thats the early church! is just an anachronism. Aside from the fact that the early church was never monolithic on anything.

Is it your contention that the gate of hell actually did prevail against the Church?

Jesus was unable to keep His promises to lead the Church into “all Truth”?

That the Holy Spirit was unable to maintain the unity of the One Faith in the One Church founded by Christ?

 

[guanophore]

No…I’m talking on an institutional level. If you want to talk about bits and pieces of truth and falsehood, the early church would be the place to go.

Wow. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone professing to be Christian with such a view of the early Church.

The idea that something founded and build by the Son of God could ever be described as “bits and peices of truth and falsehood” is frankly astonishing.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t claim the verse supported Sola Scriptura, PR.

I offered the verse in response to your question of “Scripture and verse please” (post 773) corresponding to my statement of;

All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.

Well, that’s what Scripture Alone is.

And nothing in those verses say anything about “all one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone.”

Rather, it says that we must follow the “gospel I preached”–which, as I already stated, contained 3 months worth of preaching. Clearly it could not have been all written down.

Your tradition of “All one needs to be a follower of Christ is found in Scripture alone” is a man-made tradition, Samson, not found in the Bible at all.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Absolutely, Isaiah!

Good!

In that case and from your 2nd premise, being that God breathed on the Apostles and the Apostles planted Christ’s Church. Then it is clear that Sola Ecclesia needs to be added to the infallibility formula. Being that your conclusion reads:

Conclusion: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which is God breathed (Scripture) to be the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.

Therefore, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church AND Scriptures are infallible rules of Faith, since they are both breathed by God. Both together!

 

[SteveVH]

Therefore, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church AND Scriptures are infallible rules of Faith, since they are both breathed by God. Both together!

"And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (John 20:22)

The only other time that God breathed upon man was when he created Adam and Eve.