sola scriptura

[Traverse]

I’m going to try and make this simple because I think we’re just getting caught up in responses to individual points and missing the forest for the trees.

You guys keep quoting “hold fast to the traditions… either by word of mouth or letter” over and over again. I never said I disputed the verse so repeating it isn’t really helping anything. The dispute is whether or not we still get the word of God through word of mouth, not whether or not we should hold to it if we do.

Furthermore, I’ve shown scriptural evidence for how the bible does claim that the spiritual gifts will be temporary until the bible is completed. You deny the interpretation of that scripture, which is your prerogative, but don’t continually ask me for the evidence I would submit to you because I’ve already done it. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean I’ve been withholding bible verses or can’t find any. I’ve found them! We just have a disagreement on interpretation and that’s fine. It’s a little weird when you guys just dismiss what I’ve said and then basically say “see you can’t find anything” and I’m standing here with an arrow pointed at things I’ve found.

As for the assertion that the bible doesn’t contain everything necessary for salvation… I don’t see how it doesn’t. It contains the commandments for repentance and baptism. It contains the institution of communion and the requirement that the saints assemble together. It tells us to “be holy as I am holy.” It tells us to love one another, to avoid false doctrine and stick to the faith that has been handed down to us.

What else is there?

Sacred Tradition, in my experience, has been used to convey the catholic church’s hierarchy, not illustrate additional requirements for salvation.

Someone asked me by what authority I meet on wednesday evenings for bible study. By the example of the apostles, in fact. We take communion on the first day of the week because (at least in the bible) we only have an example of that in scripture, but we DO know that the early church met frequently besides. So us picking another day to gather together to study the bible is perfectly within the authority of scripture.

A big point of confusion has been that because I use the bible as the final authority for doctrine that I deny the authority of the church. I do not in any way do this. The Lord has given authority to the church as the pillar and the foundation of truth. This does not necessarily follow, however, that the church has additional things to say that aren’t in scripture but rather can exercise authority based on scripture.

I know I’m missing a few questions here and there by not responding directly to quotes, but right now I’m trying to point out a few things so that we can go from there. You misunderstand me when you say I deny the authority of the church or that I say the Holy Spirit no longer helps the church just because I put forward a thought that the HS helps us in OTHER ways.

I will comment directly on this quote though from PR merger…

Tradition tells us this:

The canon of Scripture
The canon of Scripture is closed
Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle
The canon of Scripture is inerrant

None of the above is proclaimed in the Bible, but you believe each of those truths, yes?

I do believe these truths, but based more on common sense than the authority of sacred tradition. The canon is closed because of course it is. It’s been a long time! Revelation ended with the last apostle because of course it did… we don’t have revelation today for me to be aware of. The canon of scripture is inerrant because of course it is, it is the word of God.

The actual assembling of the books and what IS scripture and what isn’t? That I do not take as common sense and that is why I’m here on this forum, to discern the validity of my collection of scripture and the catholic collection of scripture. But which version is THE scripture doesn’t really enter into the concept of sola scriptura. Personally, I’ve seen catholics behave like they believe sola scriptura while simultaneously claiming they don’t. I’ve never seen a sacred tradition explained as valid except in light of scripture.

 

[KathleenGee]

We are getting the Sacred Scripture orally.

Catholics are in Oral Tradition. I don’t think you understood my posts.

We don’t come to faith alone but with others. It reflects Holy Trinity: Relationship.

God is love. Love requires relationship…interacting…not reading a book by yourself,…irregardless of what kind of text.

 

[Traverse]

I agree with that. The point just doesn’t have relevance with me I guess.

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean “I read the bible by myself and come to conclusions by myself because Holy Spirit yay”

If it does then I’m not sola scriptura.

 

[KathleenGee]

God is the author of the Word of God.

But the Word of God is written and also orally transmitted down through generations within the peoples of faith. It is also composed of different layers of meanings. It can be read and pondered on privately with Catholic acceptance, with your own personal interpretation. The Church calls this Biblical Studies. You are free as Catholic to study Scripture in light of Franciscan, Carmelite, charism or you can study it even within a feminist framework and be OK as Catholic. These are private interpretations and not meant to impose on the members of the Church.

But Biblical Studies is not on the same line as Orthodoxy which represents the understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scriptures and their implementation as Church among a gathering of believers, which requires the action of the Holy Spirit and God given authority of the Church. Otherwise, without ordained authority, we will go every which way.

Jesus Christ is final revelation. But it was not completed until the Council of Nicea when God’s human and divine nature needed to be more clearly defined.

The Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture does not consider texts within themselves, standing alone. Instead we look at Scripture in context of its people…where Scripture is meant to be lived out in true faith…a living faith.

We look at Sacred Scripture, every line, every thought in context of the entire whole of Scripture, which is none other than Jesus Christ Himself, Logos…God Made Man…God united with man through Christ…the Bible is supposed to connect us with God and man in community, not isolation and fragments.

We look at Scripture as its whole, in context, the Living Word of God…within the gathering of people, both mystically that incorporates all baptized Christians, and in particular in the universal Church with its members.

The wrong interpretation of Scripture leads to people divorcing themselves from other Christians so they can be better and more accurate…the focus is not Scripture then but their own self-righteousness…a bad place to be.

Our salvation is found in Christ alone. We can only ‘brag’ of Him and not ourselves. We are nothing without Him…not a book, not a text…but God made Man, Savior and Redeemer.

 

[steve_b]

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.

True. That’s because the writers of scripture are in the Church they write to and for. They aren’t seperate from the Church they write to and for, nor is the Church seperate or seperated from them.

As an aside, speaking of Church as authority

That’s why the Church, and only one Church is the piliar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15], from the beginning, because she wrote to, & for herself, and canonized her own writings and only those writings[Council of Rome 382 a.d…Trent]. This one and only Church has 4 marks in order to identify only her , thus precluding imposters and pretenders. It’s One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic, noted as articles of faith defined in the Nicene Creed 325 a.d & those same marks seen in scripture

It’s

• ***Catholic ***because as Luke writes,
• Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kataὅλος**holos*** * *Kataholos Church = *Catholic Church

Linguistically, the English word catholic is a transliteration of the Greek word katholikos. And that word is a compound word. It comes from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. So kata holos, according to the whole, (Catholic) means complete, whole, lacking nothing.

It’s

• *One *because it’s founded and ruled by Jesus as her head in heaven and Peter [Mt 16:19…] and his successors on earth, the popes of Rome, and those united to the pope worldwide.
• Holy because Jesus instituted His Church and sustains her and gives all His promises to her
• ***Apostolic ***because of direct succession from the apostles and maintaining that direct line of ordinations without division.

 

[pablope]

I’m going to try and make this simple because I think we’re just getting caught up in responses to individual points and missing the forest for the trees.

You guys keep quoting “hold fast to the traditions… either by word of mouth or letter” over and over again. I never said I disputed the verse so repeating it isn’t really helping anything. The dispute is whether or not we still get the word of God through word of mouth, not whether or not we should hold to it if we do.

.

Actually, to answer your question…this is what the Bible says:

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

It does not say read…it says to listen to determine what is truth and what is not…to an apostle.

But how do you know who is connected to an apostle today? That is why, the creeds say, one of the marks of the Church…the true church…is it is apostolic.

And from Clement of Rome, reflecting this passage says in his epistle says:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And Ireneus, writing agains the gnostics…says how apostolic tradition is preserved, not by reading the Bible alone:

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

 

[pablope]

That is a fair assertion. Please show me how it is a falsehood. Also, please show me how sacred tradition is required for the continued preservation of His Word.

Sure.

Act 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

Didache
But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread

Pliny the Younger
they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light

So we know they weren’t keeping the sabbath but were instead devoting themselves to the first day of the week. But they did indeed meet with in the temples on sabbath days. But what was being done?

Act 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

This is naturally quite different than breaking bread on Saturday.

."

From Acts 2:

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

See the phrase…“They broke bread”…breaking bread is another term for the Mass. The new Chtristians met everyday…and broke bread everyday.

 

[Traverse]

Good passage, pablope. I will meditate upon it.

Thanks!

 

[KathleenGee]

Breaking of bread is ancient Jewish custom of giving thanks to God.

When Jesus said, ‘Do this in Memory of Me’…He was setting out the new memorial, the new form of worship that fulfills the old.

But this sacrifice is perpetual with the One High Priest. The apostles and Nazarenes, that is what they were named by Orthodox Jews, continued to meet at the Jewish synagogues, and Temple.

However, disputes came about between them, and it was the Jews who cast the Christian Jews out of the community.

They reacted by letting go of the 40 Day Fast and now worship on Sunday. The Church brought back in Christ time, the 40 Day Fast with Lent to prepare for the Resurrection that followed the Passover.

I think when people start to understand Christian worship from its ancient source, worship is the missing link that completes Scripture as well and brings us into full and concrete communion with the Lord.

The Gentiles first met on Saturday’s at night, but gradually moved it to Sunday morning, the 8th day.

 

[guanophore]

I'm going to try and make this simple because I think we're just getting caught up in responses to individual points and missing the forest for the trees.

You guys keep quoting “hold fast to the traditions… either by word of mouth or letter” over and over again. I never said I disputed the verse so repeating it isn’t really helping anything. The dispute is whether or not we still get the word of God through word of mouth, not whether or not we should hold to it if we do.

I think it is both.

In the first case, one rejects that God has any investment in preserving His Word where He has placed it in the Church. This is done because the modern Christian thinks that he has a better idea of what is necessary than the Founder of the Church.

In the second case, one may not want to obey the Word of God that has been infallibly preserved in the Church, so escaping obedience is predicated upon the first case. If one can convince oneself that nothing of God’s commandments exist outside of Scripture, then one can ignore the claim with impunity.

Furthermore, I've shown scriptural evidence for how the bible does claim that the spiritual gifts will be temporary until the bible is completed.

You have done no such thing.

There is nothing in Scripture that in any way claims that the Bible is “the perfect” that is to come. Such an insinuation replaces Jesus with the written pages. This is a gross affront to God.

Secondly, the passage you are using is quite clear that the Spiritual gifts were given to build up the Church, and serve the Body until the end of the Church age. If the Spiritual gifts have ceased, then the Church is no longer on earth.

You deny the interpretation of that scripture, which is your prerogative, but don’t continually ask me for the evidence I would submit to you because I’ve already done it.

No, you have not. Show some evidence that “the perfect” is the Bible.

Just because you disagree doesn’t mean I’ve been withholding bible verses or can’t find any. I’ve found them!

Ok, then I missed a post. Can you give me a post number where you have proved that the gifts Jesus gave to the Church are no longer needed? And where the Bible says it is perfect?

By the way, you can skip any verses that say the Word of God is perfect, because these refer to the Divine Logos, who was in the beginning with God, and is God.

We just have a disagreement on interpretation and that’s fine. It’s a little weird when you guys just dismiss what I’ve said and then basically say “see you can’t find anything” and I’m standing here with an arrow pointed at things I’ve found.

You are right. You have created and assigned a meaning to the verses that never is found in Christendom until the last 150 years (that the Spiritual gifts have ceased) and that contradicts the 2000 year old Teaching of the Apostles. For that reason, your standing and pointing is just inadequate to convince us. Catholics experience the Spiritual Gifts alive and well in the Church, so it is also a bit ludicrous for you to tell us that what we are looking at does not exist.

As for the assertion that the bible doesn’t contain everything necessary for salvation… I don’t see how it doesn’t.

I can appreciate that. When one denies the reality of Sacred Tradition, one must extract one’s faith from the pages, and it is all there is left. As a result, one must cling to the errant notion that what they have is all there is.

This position also denies the work of Jesus to found and build His Church. It denies that the training of the Apostles was necessary, or that the practices He taught them, and that were passed down should be and are preserved.

It contains the commandments for repentance and baptism. It contains the institution of communion and the requirement that the saints assemble together. It tells us to “be holy as I am holy.” It tells us to love one another, to avoid false doctrine and stick to the faith that has been handed down to us.

Yes.

If you are content with the fragment of the faith that has been handed down to you, then this is sufficient for you. It is not all that Jesus wanted you to have, but if you are content with a morsal then the full banquet has no attraction.

What else is there?

Nothing of any importance to you, clearly.

 

[guanophore]

Sacred Tradition, in my experience, has been used to convey the catholic church’s hierarchy,

What does this mean?

not illustrate additional requirements for salvation.

Since you don’t believe that Sacred Tradition exists, I don’t see how you could make an assessment about what it conveys, or what relationship it has to do with salvation.

Sacred Tradition is primarily a perspective through which we understand the Holy Scriptures. Without it, the reader cannot understand the meaning of the writer.

A big point of confusion has been that because I use the bible as the final authority for doctrine that I deny the authority of the church.

Your concept of what “church” is suffers a deficiency because you have lost the other half of the revelation.

I do not in any way do this. The Lord has given authority to the church as the pillar and the foundation of truth. This does not necessarily follow, however, that the church has additional things to say that aren’t in scripture but rather can exercise authority based on scripture.

Ok. Your own perception of what authority means is probably much more important and relevant to you than what Jesus taught. If He gave His Apostles authority over the Scripture, it should not concern you, since your own authority fits better for you.

 You misunderstand me when you say I deny the authority of the church or that I say the Holy Spirit no longer helps the church just because I put forward a thought that the HS helps us in OTHER ways.

There is no authority except from God. God gave it to the Apostles, and they to their successors, the Bishops. During the Reformation, your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from this line of authority. They took authority upon themselves, created new and what they thought were improved doctrines, and passed these man -made traditions down to you.

The HS must no longer be needed to help the Church at all, since HIs gifts are deemed no longer necessary. Only the Bible is needed now. Everything for salvation is contained in it, right? Why bother with the HS?

II do believe these truths, but based more on common sense than the authority of sacred tradition. The canon is closed because of course it is. It’s been a long time! Revelation ended with the last apostle because of course it did… we don’t have revelation today for me to be aware of. The canon of scripture is inerrant because of course it is, it is the word of God.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. All these truths are part of Sacred Tradition, which you reject. That means you need to find some other way to substantiate thtat these things are true.

Prove that revelation ended with the last Apostle.

Prove there is no revelation today you must be aware of. You are relying upon the revelation the Reformers claimed 500 years ago for your canon of scripture. That is a departure from what the Apostles taught. You are relying on the revelation of the Reformers for the invented doctrine of Sola Scriptura. that is only 500 years old too. What makes you think there is not more to come?

But which version is THE scripture doesn't really enter into the concept of sola scriptura.

Yes, I have always found this a very convenient avoidance. I learned on CAF that “Sola Scriptura assumes a canon”. That way, a doctrine can be invented which rejects Sacred Tradition that relies upon Sacred Tradition! Amazing.

Personally, I’ve seen catholics behave like they believe sola scriptura while simultaneously claiming they don’t. I’ve never seen a sacred tradition explained as valid except in light of scripture.

The Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition were never meant to be separated. They are two intertwined in one single strand of Divine Revelation. The fact that the Apostles taught they are equal does not imply they were ever to be parted from one another, or used apart from each other.

 

[guanophore]

And apparently it is possible to get off track with sacred tradition.

Can you explain this?

That’s my whole point. I haven’t seen the benefit of sacred tradition that you keep insinuating.

I should think not! How could anyone possibly “see” a benefit in something they believe does not exist?

As I’ve said before, please show me your charismatic gifts. Many of them were for the unbelievers to see.

Oh, sorry, I did not see this before. It would be more appropriate for you to attend a prayer meeting than to expect this over the internet. Contact
nsc-chariscenter.org/
to find the one nearest you.

I understand that interpretation.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  The problem is that this interpretation suggests that the different parts equal Jesus, but they don't.  They equal His message.

Sorry, you lost me here. What “different parts”?

Jesus is One. He is the Perfect One. The gifts he gave to the Church will be active in the Church until He comes again to take His bride to heaven. I don’t see where any “parts are equal to Jesus”.

Put tongues together, put prophecy together, put knowledge together, you don’t end up with Jesus, you end up with His teaching.

No one was saying such a thing. These gifts are for the building up of the Church until He comes again.

So when you take those parts and come up with something “perfect” you end up with the complete word of God, which the early church did not have yet. It is logical to follow that this passage refers to the completion of scripture.

No, Traverse. There is nothing in this text or anywhere else to imply that the Spiritual gifts should be “put together” to “come up with” anything. The complete Word of God is found in Jesus alone. There is nothing in this passage, or any other, that indicates the Bible is “perfect” either. The Bible cannot replace the person of Christ, any more than the Spiritual gifts can. This is idolatry.

Why warn anyone about the temporary nature of spiritual gifts if it’s only until Jesus comes again and the faithful go to Heaven?

It is not a warning. The Apostle is teaching that the Gifts are for the Church age. When we are taken up with Him into heaven, they won’t be needed anymore.

What’s the point? It is warning them of a point in which they do not need to be prepared.

No warning there. Maranatha! is that for which we need to be prepared.

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree with that. The point just doesn’t have relevance with me I guess.

Sola scriptura doesn’t mean “I read the bible by myself and come to conclusions by myself because Holy Spirit yay”

If it does then I’m not sola scriptura.

Traverse,

You ignored my question. You stated this.

There was one true church in the beginning, and I believe it has survived to this day. My question is… is this church the catholic church or not?

What true chruch, from the beginning, has survived today that you believe to be the true church. I certainly want to know. Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Traverse]

I think it is both.

In the first case, one rejects that God has any investment in preserving His Word where He has placed it in the Church. This is done because the modern Christian thinks that he has a better idea of what is necessary than the Founder of the Church.

In the second case, one may not want to obey the Word of God that has been infallibly preserved in the Church, so escaping obedience is predicated upon the first case. If one can convince oneself that nothing of God’s commandments exist outside of Scripture, then one can ignore the claim with impunity.

I haven’t rejected that God has investment in preserving His Word. I’ve said that the bible is His Word.

I don’t appreciate your insinuation that the whole point I’m discussing this is because I wish to avoid obedience. Why would I bother discussing it at all then? I’d go hide in a corner and not wish to confront these matters.

You have done no such thing.

There is nothing in Scripture that in any way claims that the Bible is “the perfect” that is to come. Such an insinuation replaces Jesus with the written pages. This is a gross affront to God.

Secondly, the passage you are using is quite clear that the Spiritual gifts were given to build up the Church, and serve the Body until the end of the Church age. If the Spiritual gifts have ceased, then the Church is no longer on earth.

Blah. I would obviously disagree that it is “quite clear.” I’ve also demonstrated that the “parts” are parts of God’s message and that the bible makes more sense as the compilation of those messages. Do the messages from the Holy Spirit put together equal complete revelation or do they equal Christ? Furthermore, Christ was already here. I’m not trying to outright deny your claim, but I don’t understand it. I would encourage you to have more patience with people than to try and dismiss everything they say as “well obviously you don’t want to be obedient.”

No, you have not. Show some evidence that “the perfect” is the Bible.

See above.

Ok, then I missed a post. Can you give me a post number where you have proved that the gifts Jesus gave to the Church are no longer needed? And where the Bible says it is perfect?

Yeah, yeah. You’re just being coy. I get it.

You are right. You have created and assigned a meaning to the verses that never is found in Christendom until the last 150 years (that the Spiritual gifts have ceased) and that contradicts the 2000 year old Teaching of the Apostles. For that reason, your standing and pointing is just inadequate to convince us. Catholics experience the Spiritual Gifts alive and well in the Church, so it is also a bit ludicrous for you to tell us that what we are looking at does not exist.

Then SHOW me. That’s all I ask. I do not think it is strange to want to see the spiritual gifts in the modern age demonstrated.

I can appreciate that. When one denies the reality of Sacred Tradition, one must extract one’s faith from the pages, and it is all there is left. As a result, one must cling to the errant notion that what they have is all there is.

This position also denies the work of Jesus to found and build His Church. It denies that the training of the Apostles was necessary, or that the practices He taught them, and that were passed down should be and are preserved.

It doesn’t deny any of those things.

If you are content with the fragment of the faith that has been handed down to you, then this is sufficient for you. It is not all that Jesus wanted you to have, but if you are content with a morsal then the full banquet has no attraction.

Well obviously I don’t think I have a fragment right now. I would not be content with a fragment. But you have not sufficiently explained to me how I have a fragment.

Nothing of any importance to you, clearly.

Seriously, man. You’re really rude.

 

[Traverse]

What does this mean?

Pope. Government style organization.

Since you don’t believe that Sacred Tradition exists, I don’t see how you could make an assessment about what it conveys, or what relationship it has to do with salvation.

Sacred Tradition is primarily a perspective through which we understand the Holy Scriptures. Without it, the reader cannot understand the meaning of the writer.

See, when I read that all I see is “I read the scriptures with a bias.”

Your concept of what “church” is suffers a deficiency because you have lost the other half of the revelation.

SHOW me this. Please.

Ok. Your own perception of what authority means is probably much more important and relevant to you than what Jesus taught. If He gave His Apostles authority over the Scripture, it should not concern you, since your own authority fits better for you.

How do you know what is important to me?

There is no authority except from God. God gave it to the Apostles, and they to their successors, the Bishops. During the Reformation, your spiritual ancestors separated themselves from this line of authority. They took authority upon themselves, created new and what they thought were improved doctrines, and passed these man -made traditions down to you.

I don’t claim a link with the reformation. I’m actually trying to study early church history with an elder in my congregation right now. If he suggests that the church went “underground” and that we returned during the reformation that will be sufficient to push me away from that and towards the catholic church, or orthodox for that matter.

I claim only to belong to the church that Christ established, based on the fact that I strive to keep to the teachings passed along in the New Testament, which currently I see as sufficient and has not been demonstrated that it is not sufficient.

The HS must no longer be needed to help the Church at all, since HIs gifts are deemed no longer necessary. Only the Bible is needed now. Everything for salvation is contained in it, right? Why bother with the HS?

Does man no longer need help? You are ignoring the purpose of those spirtual gifts. They were a sign to unbelievers and to believers. Now we sit and study the word and the bible is put up with much scrutiny as a testament to us. This really just goes back to me not seeing evidence for these spiritual gifts continuing and I would like to. I’m not trying to deny something I don’t see just because I don’t see it, but when I have attended a catholic service it has not been conducted in a manner that is consistent with the first century church where those gifts were undeniably. I do not see people interpreting tongues or standing to prophecy in turn. I don’t see anything like that and that is the basis of my assertion that these gifts no longer exist. When those gifts are gone I look back to the bible and see where it says they are temporary and I can do nothing other than conclude that they were temporary in a more immediate sense than what you claim and the interpretation of that passage is based around that. If I saw these spiritual gifts plainly then I could obviously conclude that the interpretation must be wrong.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. All these truths are part of Sacred Tradition, which you reject. That means you need to find some other way to substantiate thtat these things are true.

Prove that revelation ended with the last Apostle.

Prove there is no revelation today you must be aware of. You are relying upon the revelation the Reformers claimed 500 years ago for your canon of scripture. That is a departure from what the Apostles taught. You are relying on the revelation of the Reformers for the invented doctrine of Sola Scriptura. that is only 500 years old too. What makes you think there is not more to come?

But don’t you believe that public revelation has ended? What is the point of me trying to prove something you already believe?

Sola scriptura isn’t based on a rejection of sacred tradition, it is based on a desire to follow God’s word when we see no evidence that it is anywhere outside the bible in this modern age.

Yes, I have always found this a very convenient avoidance. I learned on CAF that “Sola Scriptura assumes a canon”. That way, a doctrine can be invented which rejects Sacred Tradition that relies upon Sacred Tradition! Amazing.

You are really unhelpful. Where’s PRMerger?

The Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition were never meant to be separated. They are two intertwined in one single strand of Divine Revelation. The fact that the Apostles taught they are equal does not imply they were ever to be parted from one another, or used apart from each other.

I would like to see your evidence for this statement.

 

[Traverse]

Can you explain this?

No, I don’t remember!

I should think not! How could anyone possibly “see” a benefit in something they believe does not exist?

Unhelpful.

Oh, sorry, I did not see this before. It would be more appropriate for you to attend a prayer meeting than to expect this over the internet. Contact
nsc-chariscenter.org/
to find the one nearest you.

What is this exactly?

Sorry, you lost me here. What “different parts”?

Tongues, prophecy, wisdom, knowledge, teaching, etc etc. The different spiritual gifts of the early church.

Jesus is One. He is the Perfect One. The gifts he gave to the Church will be active in the Church until He comes again to take His bride to heaven. I don’t see where any “parts are equal to Jesus”.

That’s exactly my point. The context of that passage is that we know in part and we prophecy in part, etc etc. But soon the partial will be done away and we will have the whole. So then, what are these parts doing for us? There giving us the word of God. So what would the whole be? The complete word of God. Does that not follow?

No one was saying such a thing. These gifts are for the building up of the Church until He comes again.

By suggesting that the “perfect” is Christ you are saying that.

No, Traverse. There is nothing in this text or anywhere else to imply that the Spiritual gifts should be “put together” to “come up with” anything. The complete Word of God is found in Jesus alone. There is nothing in this passage, or any other, that indicates the Bible is “perfect” either. The Bible cannot replace the person of Christ, any more than the Spiritual gifts can. This is idolatry.

That’s not at all what I was saying. I did not say that the bible replaces Christ. That would indeed be idolatry. We were talking about the nature of the spiritual gifts being temporary. Were they building up the church until the church was in possession of complete revelation (the bible) or is it continually building up the church until the end of time? That is the question.

It is not a warning. The Apostle is teaching that the Gifts are for the Church age. When we are taken up with Him into heaven, they won’t be needed anymore.

What, in your opinion, would be the purpose of explaining the temporary nature of the gifts if it is not important for us to know?

 

[Traverse]

Traverse,

You ignored my question. You stated this.

What true chruch, from the beginning, has survived today that you believe to be the true church. I certainly want to know. Enquiring minds want to know.

The church that holds to His commandments. If you aspire to follow the pattern of the new testament and are baptized for the remission of sins in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, then you are a part of that church.

It’s kind of like how you guys say that when you are baptized properly you are a part of the body of Christ even if you aren’t attending a catholic church and confirmed.

The body of Christ persists beyond earthly institutions. If it didn’t then I’d think there would have been a huge problem in the middle ages when the catholic church was considerably corrupt.

Admittedly, part of why I’m on this forum (and have been trying to research myself) is the necessity of an unbroken chain of succession or if anyone baptized properly and striving to follow the commandments is sufficient.

 

[KathleenGee]

Traverse,

The Church was very corrupt…but in certain places…not everywhere. You appear to have read alot of propaganda against the Church. There was also like wise a movement for nationalization in Germany, England, and then France to for an understanding of faith that is parallel or equal to relativism.

You have to go back to the Acts of the Apostles and read that we had bishops way back then, appointed by the apostles.

History goes back and forth.

Christ is big enough and God enough to have the right and will to choose men to run His Church. Otherwise it is my idea vs your idea, it is my interpretation of Scripture vs yours.

You cannot reduce faith to words on paper because text is so vulnerable to many interpretations.

Ours is the One True God of Communion. There is alot of spin out there just using the word, ‘dogma’. We have very few dogmas. We have doctrine.

The first set of doctrines were and is still in use the Apostles Creed, that was further completed in the Nicene Creed.

Think about it. It takes time for human beings to do things. Things go slow. The Church did not come out of the sky in ready made form.

It came from Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ IS the life of the Church.

The papacy’s role is both the sign of unity…going back to the Acts, human nature does best with one head, and the pope represents the one head, Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the papacy speaks the Living Tradition of Jesus Christ for to day.

I highly suggested to you to get a copy or just view some of the daily writings of Pope Benedict where he teaches that the Church of Christ is truly His mystical body, His bride.

The other problem people have is that when we enter into the Catholic Church through faith, Word and Sacraments, we are entering into His life, into divine eternal time. The Sacred Scriptures are written in eternal time for all peoples and times.

If you approach Scripture in man’s time, which is linear, you will only see events set in stone and see God as unforgiving.

Jesus Christ loves the Catholic Church. He loves its members. And again, He is big enough as God to forgive our sins, which the Church has done in asking Him forgiveness for its corruptions.

Protestants who have an adversarial spirit against Christ’s Church need to follow Him and take on His way of looking at things and at us, and acknowledge the truth that Christ has forgiven us for our past sins.

 

[joe370]

Hey Traverse…

See, when I read that all I see is “I read the scriptures with a bias.”

Don’t all non-catholics and catholics, to some degree, read scripture with a bias, such as too many books in the catholic bible, as taught and believed by non-catholics e.g. most of my family?

Sola scriptura isn’t based on a rejection of sacred tradition, it is based on a desire to follow God’s word when we see no evidence that it is anywhere outside the bible in this modern age.

As a former non-catholic, what bothered me the most was the fact that the practice of sola scriptura (and I searched and searched…) could be found nowhere within the pages of sacred scripture, making the practice a man-made tradition stemming from the 16th century at best. Your thoughts friend…

 

[joe370]

Traverse;10304139]The church that holds to His commandments. If you aspire to follow the pattern of the new testament and are baptized for the remission of sins in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, then you are a part of that church.

Agreed. Of course there are so many autonomous churches. What is important to one person may not be to another. For example, I wanted to belong to a church founded by Jesus, in the 1st century, as opposed to a mere man in the 16th, 17th…21st century. Others like my sister do not see the relevance.

The body of Christ persists beyond earthly institutions. If it didn’t then I’d think there would have been a huge problem in the middle ages when the catholic church was considerably corrupt.

Do you believe in one invisible church, for lack of a better term at the moment? BTW, corruption has been a problem in the CC since the days of the apostles. Jesus predicted that scandals would be impossible to avoid, so we should not be so shocked. Jesus only promised to transmit and preserve truth.

Admittedly, part of why I’m on this forum (and have been trying to research myself) is the necessity of an unbroken chain of succession or if anyone baptized properly and striving to follow the commandments is sufficient.

That’s a good starting point. That was my starting point. IMHO, an unbroken chain of succession is the way in which God preserves doctrinal truth in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat. Saint Paul seems to have understood the importance and it is found the NT. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the death of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession - his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.