sola scriptura

[Bella92]

Except, Bella, it’s not an honest way to be.

Why isn’t it?

 

[CopticChristian]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

Tweetie,

Read your posts. Your experience with your father is one of the reasons that I find AA not to be helpful. You point out that he stopped drinking and that is good. The problem is that he lost his faith in the process.

Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura, however you spin it, the Bible is all we need is Protestant and denies the need of a teaching Church. So you cannot take a false teaching literally in any way. You have to reject it and ask yourself where did this book come from and why is it here? It is and always has been part of Liturgy.

Follow the order of the Mass, next time you attend. There are Psalsm, OT readings, NT readings and you will find that they all hang together in the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is Bible based and the homily is an attempt to pull it all together. My priest routinely asks at the beginnig of mass how we lived our Faith, preaches how we live our Faith and bids us goodbye to live our Faith.

Rethink this please…

 

[Porknpie]

Through Tradition, berry!

Back to post #844 and Thessalonians. “Hold on Fast” :bounce:

 

[CopticChristian]

Back to post #844 and Thessalonians. “Hold on Fast” :bounce:

Pork,

Ver. 15. So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.

and to that I would add what blessed John Chrysostom, Saint and Doctor said in the 4th century…

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.

 

[PRmerger]

Why isn’t it?

Because it’s like saying, "I’ll take your money, mom, but when you tell me to clean my room I’m going to say, ‘You can’t tell me what to do!’ "

 

[steve_b]

Two questions:

1. How do we know what was said in these? Is there a specific delineation? Bishop “A” told Bishop “B” who told Bishop “C” about “X” which was not written down, so to speak?
   IOW, how do we know what actually said? (And yes, I know we could say the same about what was actually written, too.)
2. The apostles and their disciples, and the ECF’s seem to have been rather prolific in writing important things down. Why, do you surmise, did they not write other things down that could have been important to the Church in the future, particularly considering their being guided by the Holy Spirit?
   Jon

Justin Martyr ~100a.d. - ~165a.d.
1st aplogy, passes on details on Liturgy, Eucharist as real presence, the mass, Sunday worship

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and* to those who are absent they carry away a portion*
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία the [Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “[snip for space] And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. …

Dialogue with Trypho shows the Eucharist is a sacrifice

I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it. So He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it].

 

[Traverse]

CopticChristian;:

Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura, however you spin it, the Bible is all we need is Protestant and denies the need of a teaching Church. So you cannot take a false teaching literally in any way. You have to reject it and ask yourself where did this book come from and why is it here? It is and always has been part of Liturgy.

This doesn’t make any sense. Sola or solo or whatever you want to call it still identifies a need for the church. It can’t not. I mean the bible says not to forsake the assembly so if you’re taking the bible as the final rule of authority you will end up with an authoritative church.

 

[PRmerger]

This doesn’t make any sense. Sola or solo or whatever you want to call it still identifies a need for the church.

Excellent.

And it’s to this authority that you tacitly submit when you quote the NT.

And you must acknowledge that this authority has been given the charism of infallibility…

unless you want to claim there is some error in the canon of the NT. Perhaps you believe that 3 John should be omitted and the Shepherd of Hermas should be included?

 

[guanophore]

These are false premises in regards to Sola Scriptura.

Here is a more accurate representation:

Major premise: Only Scripture has been declared from the mouth of God to be Theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16).
Major premise #2: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which has been* breathed out by God *(Scripture) is infallible.
Conclusion: Sola Scriptura adherents believe only that which is God breathed (Scripture) to be the only infallible rule of faith for the Church.

This is very succint.

There are two problems here. The first is that to be “infallible” is a condition of persons, not books, however Holy. Actions, such as ruling, and exercising authority require will, intellect, and the ability to be held responsible and accountable for one’s acts. It requires "fallibility’ (ability to be take wrong action). Writings, not even Sacred writings, do not posess these qualities.

That being the case, forcing the Scriptures into a role they cannot take results in the individuals doing the forcing assuming the role of “actor”. It is the intellect and perception of the person doing the reading and applying the “rule of faith” who is the final arbitor, not the Scripture. It is the person interpreting that exercises the “rule”. This is why we have such a fracturing in Christendom. Eveyone who reads can have a different understanding of the “rule” and how it is applied, so there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I find it incredibly ironic thata neither of these concepts can be found in the Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it incredibly ironic thata neither of these concepts can be found in the Scripture.

Which means that those paradigms were proclaimed by Arizona Samson, who heard it from a pastor, who heard it from another pastor, who heard it from another pastor…but no one ever read

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

in a single page of the Bible.

It is a man-made tradition that some have been duped into believing.

 

[guanophore]

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, if you think that these verses support this point:

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

There is nothing in those verses that supports your assertion.

 

[guanophore]

 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

It does.

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

Where do you think you got the word “Trinity”?

 With that knowledge in mind, how can we trust they know anything about traditions outside of Scripture?

For the same reason you can trust that the Bible you have is actually Scripture. This is the Word of God that has been infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The third question comes from my blog post at AnotherChristianBlog.org:

Mark 7: 8-13 says:
…
Here we see a very interesting interaction between Jesus and the religious authorities. … 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

You make an excellent point, irrelevant, however. This condemnation was directed toward human traditions, not Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is from God, and since it comes from the same Source as the Scriptures, it is impossible for them to contradict.

 

[guanophore]

  The problem is that God has given us the written word to communicate his truth to his people. He did this so that his people would have an unchanging truth to go back to.

And this is a problem why?

That is why Jesus refers back to the Scriptures when dealing with the false teachers of his day. Here is a good question for you. #3 Jesus constantly refers back to the OT when challenging the Pharisees. How could Jesus do this when there was no Roman Magisterium to define what was and what wasn’t Scripture?

Are you suggesting the God does not know which writings are inspired, and which are not?

Do you realize that the New Testament does not contain an inspired table of contents?
Or did you think Jesus wrote down a list of the books that should be contained in it after HIs resurrection?

Perhaps you believe this was contained in His teachings to the Apostles during the 40 days after his resurrection? I have always wondered what they talked about! If you know where I can get the mp3’s let me know!

    #4 Regarding your question on why we trust only in Scripture is this...it is the only way we can know what the Apostles taught.

And yet, the Scriptures say otherwise…

As I mentioned in my post the CC has not infallibly defined any words of the Apostles outside of what is given to us by Scripture. The only way to know what they actually taught is by the eyewitness accounts.

This might be a good time to learn something about the history of your faith, and the development of the creeds. Hypostatic union might be another good term to research, along with Theotokos. Welcome to CAF, and a brand new chapter of your spiritual development.

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by berrytc44
That is why Jesus refers back to the Scriptures when dealing with the false teachers of his day. Here is a good question for you. #3 Jesus constantly refers back to the OT when challenging the Pharisees. How could Jesus do this when there was no Roman Magisterium to define what was and what wasn’t Scripture?

How could Jesus do this



Berry,

Think this one through.

 

[Traverse]

Traverse. Wonderful, …can now understand why you are believing what you are believing. This scripture is speaking to the “way of love” and that with the coming of Christ & Heaven, Love will remain but other things will be done away. Lines 11 -13 summarize the teaching. You are isolating a text from the total meaning of the paragraph.

Here is the Haydock commentary below.

Ver. 8. Prophecies and tongues last no longer than this life. — Knowledge shall be destroyed, that is, that imperfect knowledge we have in this world. For now we know only in part, we only see, as it were, through a glass, and imperfectly. — Faith, which is of things that appear not, and hope, which is of things that we enjoy not, will cease in heaven, but charity, the greater, or greatest even of these three, will remain, and be increased in heaven. (Witham)

That is an interesting take on that passage, but I’m not sure it makes sense. I will think on it, however. It just doesn’t seem to me like that passage is talking about Jesus coming again (or seeing Him in Heaven) but is talking about the complete revelation of God. After all, the “in part” that is discussed are different parts of the revelation of God gifted by the Holy Spirit. When you add up those parts you get a complete revelation (the bible), you don’t get Jesus.

True…before 400 AD there was no bible.

But we know that’s not true don’t we? The written word was finished around 100AD. What were those divine scriptures doing for three hundred years? I have shown you that the early church would have recognized them.

No … the Spirit has never left. Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit… he did … and will be with us until the end of time.

I didn’t say the spirit left, but I said the specific spiritual gifts left. Not because were were abandoned but because those gifts were no longer needed.

Traverse, what are the things that he is writing? What is the Lord’s commandment that is being referred to…? What do you understand a prophet or spiritual to be…?

The point of my showing that verse is that early christians gifted with prophecy immediately recognized what was the Lord’s commandment and what was not. That is, they would recognize that a letter Paul sent them would be scripture. It was part of my showing you that it doesn’t make sense that there would be “no bible” for another three hundred years because the early church clearly recognized it.

I’m not saying that they therefore all carried bibles around, but we do know even from early historical writings that the churches themselves read scripture. Given that there weren’t many churches yet it is not far fetched to realize that scripture would have been copied and distributed to each of the churches for them to have a copy well before 400AD.

 

[PRmerger]

But we know that’s not true don’t we? The written word was finished around 100AD. What were those divine scriptures doing for three hundred years? I have shown you that the early church would have recognized them.

Could you answer this question, Traverse: out of the over 400 Christian texts that were around in 100 AD, how did the early Christians know which ones were inspired and which ones weren’t?

 

[Traverse]

Could you answer this question, Traverse: out of the over 400 Christian texts that were around in 100 AD, how did the early Christians know which ones were inspired and which ones weren’t?

I already covered this actually. The bible discusses how this happened.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.
But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

It was through the gift of prophecy, a gift given to certain individuals in the early church.

 

[PRmerger]

It was through the gift of prophecy, a gift given to certain individuals in the early church.

Which individuals, Traverse?

 

[PRmerger]

I already covered this actually. The bible discusses how this happened.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

Are you saying that only those things which Paul wrote were recognized by the early Christians as inspired?

What about the Gospel of Mark? And Hebrews? How did the early Christians recognize this to be Scripture?