sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter tweetiebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
I don’t think my question was that difficult. Nor was it combative.

It’s been asked of you at least 3 times now.

You asked us at least 10 questions in one post, and asked, within a period of hours, why I hadn’t responded to them.

I think I have been much more generous and considerate.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say your question was combative, PR
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
I apologize if that’s what you thought I was referring to. I meant the thread itself overall.
Click to expand...
Okey-dokey. 🙂

Can you please answer the question?

Actually, it’s on topic for this thread because it speaks to the fallacy of Sola Scriptura.

Everyone who quotes from the NT is giving a tacit acknowledgement that they reject Sola Scriptura, for the only way they know that the NT is inspired is because of Sacred Tradition.

Unless there is some other criterion they have applied?

If so, that means they are required to examine all of the other (over 400) ancient Christian texts and discerned that this criterion excluded them.

Have you done this?

If not (and I am guessing that you have not), then you must acknowledge that you are submitting to the authority of the Catholic (or EO) Church.

So not by the Bible Alone.
 
PRmerger said:
Okey-dokey. 🙂

Can you please answer the question?

Actually, it’s on topic for this thread because it speaks to the fallacy of Sola Scriptura.

Everyone who quotes from the NT is giving a tacit acknowledgement that they reject Sola Scriptura, for the only way they know that the NT is inspired is because of Sacred Tradition.

Unless there is some other criterion they have applied?

If so, that means they are required to examine all of the other (over 400) ancient Christian texts and discerned that this criterion excluded them.

Have you done this?

If not (and I am guessing that you have not), then you must acknowledge that you are submitting to the authority of the Catholic (or EO) Church.

So not by the Bible Alone.
Click to expand...
There are three assumptions in your post above which I thinknare wholly unwarranted on your part.
  1. That of the 400 books you mention, none but a handful of them were ever seriously considered to make it into the recognized canon. With the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul, the rest were almost universally considered spurious or heretical by the close of the second century. Evidences internal and external quickly dismissed them.
  2. Your presupposition that the ancient church and the modern Roman Catholic Church are equivalent. I reject this claim. I would reject it for the EO as well. Their claim has more merit than Rome, however. At least, on an ecclesiastical level.
  3. That sola scriptura denies any involvement of the church in the recognition of the canon. Sola scriptura makes no claims about the relationship between the canon and church authority. Its a red herring fallacy. Your arguments based on the canon are directed toward a caricature of sola scriptura that no Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed Protestant would recognize. You say “the Bible alone” but that is not what sola scriptura refers to.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
There are three assumptions in your post above which I thinknare wholly unwarranted on your part.
…
2. Your presupposition that the ancient church and the modern Roman Catholic Church are equivalent. I reject this claim. I would reject it for the EO as well. Their claim has more merit than Rome, however. At least, on an ecclesiastical level.
…
Click to expand...
On what basis?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
There are three assumptions in your post above which I thinknare wholly unwarranted on your part.

…
3. That sola scriptura denies any involvement of the church in the recognition of the canon. Sola scriptura makes no claims about the relationship between the canon and church authority. Its a red herring fallacy. Your arguments based on the canon are directed toward a caricature of sola scriptura that no Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed Protestant would recognize. You say “the Bible alone” but that is not what sola scriptura refers to.
Click to expand...
To what does Sola Scriptural refer? What did Jesus teach about SS?
 
stewstew03 said:
To what does Sola Scriptural refer? What did Jesus teach about SS?
Click to expand...
Simply stated that Scripture is the only infallible source of revelation which the church has in her possession. Since it is God’s word, it carries the same authority as God’s revelation. It is reflective of his character and carries his full authority. Since it does, nothing can regulate it, norm it or equal it since to do so would be to place something else alongside his authority. As such all traditions, councils, confessions, practices and creeds are subject to its authority. Doctrines not found within it or that are opposed to it must be reckoned false.

Note what it is not:

Not a statement that there is not any other form of authority.
Not a statement that the church is not necessary to interpret it.
Not s statement that the individual can interpret it apart from the the corporate church.
Not a statement that the canon was not received by the church.
Not a statement that God’s word cannot be delivered orally.
 
stewstew03 said:
To what does Sola Scriptural refer? What did Jesus teach about SS?
Click to expand...
To your second question. Sola scriptura is, strictly speaking, not a doctrine but a practice. Its principles are based on the simple fact that Scripture is God’s word. That this is attested to by Jesus and the apostles is abundant.
 
stewstew03 said:
On what basis?
Click to expand...
On the basis that it has introduced as de fide dogma, doctrines and teachings foreign to the apostolic witness (primarily) and unheard of or not agreed upon universally by the church (secondarily)
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
To your second question. Sola scriptura is, strictly speaking, not a doctrine but a practice. Its principles are based on the simple fact that Scripture is God’s word. That this is attested to by Jesus and the apostles is abundant.
Click to expand...
Of course, Catholics affirm that Scripture is God’s word. But how do YOU know Scripture is God’s word? Tradition?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Simply stated that Scripture is the only infallible source of revelation which the church has in her possession. Since it is God’s word, it carries the same authority as God’s revelation. It is reflective of his character and carries his full authority. Since it does, nothing can regulate it, norm it or equal it since to do so would be to place something else alongside his authority. As such all traditions, councils, confessions, practices and creeds are subject to its authority. Doctrines not found within it or that are opposed to it must be reckoned false.

Note what it is not:

Not a statement that there is not any other form of authority.
Not a statement that the church is not necessary to interpret it.
Not s statement that the individual can interpret it apart from the the corporate church.
Not a statement that the canon was not received by the church.
Not a statement that God’s word cannot be delivered orally.
Click to expand...
So, for you the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth, yes?
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
On the basis that it has introduced as de fide dogma, doctrines and teachings foreign to the apostolic witness (primarily) and unheard of or not agreed upon universally by the church (secondarily)
Click to expand...
Such as… the bible’s Table of Contents? Examples?
 
stewstew03 said:
So, for you the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth, yes?
Click to expand...
No. The truth is God’s word in the form of the prophetic and apostolic teaching. The church is its pillar and bulwark because the church teaches it. The church is not the truth itself; it supports and holds it up.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
No. The truth is God’s word in the form of the prophetic and apostolic teaching. The church is its pillar and bulwark because the church teaches it. The church is not the truth itself; it supports and holds it up.
Click to expand...
In other words, the church is the authority on Truth.
 
stewstew03 said:
Of course, Catholics affirm that Scripture is God’s word. But how do YOU know Scripture is God’s word? Tradition?
Click to expand...
I answered this on the other thread so I would refer you there. I’d paste a link but I’m typing on my mobile device and its not reliable for copying links…cottonpickin technology
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top