sola scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter tweetiebird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We can be “certain we have it”
But who will interpret it for you?
by believing the words of the One who commanded John to **“Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” **(Rev 21:5)
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
John 21:25
 
Where in scripture is it said that teaching is based on scripture alone?
It doesn’t have to. Scripture does explicitly state that we obey the revelation of God and not doctrines invented by men which contradict or are absent from God’s revelation. Revelation is principally revealed in the Person of Christ (Heb. 1). When a Catholic or any other group with doctrine they claim is not revealed in Scripture but comes from the apostles argues for their position, the burden on them is to demonstrate that the doctrine is apostolic. We don’t have to disprove it, because a negative cannot be disproved.
 
So… the Holy Spirit was never with the Church, or left the Church in the 16th century…?
The Holy Spirit was with the church, yes. Not giving new revelation, however. When did the Spirit depart the Eastern churches, stew?
[PS - again, you trust the Church’s authority on this matter of God-breathed Scripture, as PR has demonstrated].
I’ve said repeatedly that the church witnesses to the canon.
 
Of course Scripture existed before the canon was established - do you deny that there were other “gospels” and “inspired” letters (not included in the canon) used as scripture by certain Christian communities?
I don’t deny that. The gospels and epistles deemed heretical were not. Were the communities that used the Didache wrong about its inspiration? Yes. But it did not affect their doctrine? No.
 
Okay - what was the literacy rate for European rural peasants in the 4th century?
Low. It didn’t have to be high because the Scriptures were read aloud continually. It was a part of the communal, liturgical life of the church. We fail to realize the significance of receiving a copy of something written by Paul. It wasnt “meh I don’t need this, I have tradition.”
 
It doesn’t have to. Scripture does explicitly state that we obey the revelation of God and not doctrines invented by men which contradict or are absent from God’s revelation. Revelation is principally revealed in the Person of Christ (Heb. 1). When a Catholic or any other group with doctrine they claim is not revealed in Scripture but comes from the apostles argues for their position, the burden on them is to demonstrate that the doctrine is apostolic. We don’t have to disprove it, because a negative cannot be disproved.
You are still saying that everything must come from scripture. Where does the Bible say this?
 
You are still saying that everything must come from scripture. Where does the Bible say this?
Everything must come from revelation. Therefore, we have to determine if something is revelation. The other source must be demonstrated to be theopneustos.
 
Everything must come from revelation. Therefore, we have to determine if something is revelation. The other source must be demonstrated to be theopneustos.
What you’re saying is not making any sense to me at all. I intend no offense, but it can be difficult for a Catholic to understand a Protestant viewpoint, because a Protestant viewpoint can be based on an individual’s interpretation of just about anything scriptural, or from Church teachings (especially early Church teachings) and manifest in a great variety of ways and means; it can be based on anything from various written sources I already mentioned, or what the Holy Ghost has supposedly told them (completely subjective), or from non-Catholic written sources. The list can go on and on, and it can become quite complicated. Being complicated can sometimes give an aura of being authoritative, when it’s not. It’s just someone’s opinion.

It’s difficult to keep up with all of the different processes that people come up with to explain Sola Scriptura and other non-Catholic viewpoints. As humans, in our effort to make sense of the world and of religion, try to rely on our own efforts to define what is true and right. If I were a Protestant, I’d probably do the same thing.
 
What you’re saying is not making any sense to me at all. I intend no offense, but it can be difficult for a Catholic to understand a Protestant viewpoint
None taken. What I am saying, ultimately, is that every teaching must be able to be demonstrated as apostolic. The prophets and apostles are the foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone. They laid a foundation to the building which is the church. Nothing can be added to or taken away from the foundation or the structure collapses. The faith has been deliverED to the saints. This is why every teaching must be subject to that which is God-breathed. If it is not, then the yeast leavens the whole lump. So when soneone comes along and says “I have this piece of sacred tradition which is not mentioned by any apostle anywhere,” it has to be checked against that which we know is apostolic. That is simply the rule of sola scriptura.
because a Protestant viewpoint can be based on an individual’s interpretation of just about anything scriptural, or from Church teachings (especially early Church teachings) and manifest in a great variety of ways and means; it can be based on anything from various written sources I already mentioned, or what the Holy Ghost has supposedly told them (completely subjective)
I hear you. I’m not advocating that kind of silliness.
 
The rule according to whom?
1 John 4:1; 1 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:1-2, 4:3-5; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:13-15

The pattern is clear; revelation comes from God to the prophets and apostles. The apostles teach it. Everything must be checked against and demonstrated to be from those teachings.
 
1 John 4:1; 1 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:1-2, 4:3-5; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 1:3; 2 Cor. 11:13-15

The pattern is clear; revelation comes from God to the prophets and apostles. The apostles teach it. Everything must be checked against and demonstrated to be from those teachings.
How do you know that everything must be checked and demonstrated against those parts of scripture?
 
How do you know that everything must be checked and demonstrated against those parts of scripture?
I didn’t say those parts of Scripture, as in, those verses. Those verses demonstrate that everything must be checked to see if it is apostolic; i.e., must be demonstrated to be revelation from God.

Also Mark 7, where the concept of teaching supposedly from God (the Korban rule) contradicts what the Old Testament Scriptures teach. Thereby, establishing it was a doctrine of men that nullified the word of God.
 
None taken. What I am saying, ultimately, is that every teaching must be able to be demonstrated as apostolic…
I take it that it is your firm belief that the Baptist Church is the Apostolic Church (or comes closest to…)?
 
I take it that it is your firm belief that the Baptist Church is the Apostolic Church (or comes closest to…)?
I believe that Baptist teachings best reflect apostolic teaching, yes. Of course, it’s a bit loaded (which good Baptist preachers never get…ahem…but I digress) statement since the fundamentals of Baptist belief are not any different from what Christians believe generally.
 
I didn’t say those parts of Scripture, as in, those verses. Those verses demonstrate that everything must be checked to see if it is apostolic; i.e., must be demonstrated to be revelation from God.
To whom do the verses grant the authority to know for sure that something is demonstrated to be revelation from God?
 
To whom do the verses grant the authority to know for sure that something is demonstrated to be revelation from God?
To the church, by examining what has been entrusted to the church (see also 1 Tim. 1). That is to whom the NT is addressed.
 
I believe that Baptist teachings best reflect apostolic teaching, yes. Of course, it’s a bit loaded (which good Baptist preachers never get…ahem…but I digress) statement since the fundamentals of Baptist belief are not any different from what Christians believe generally.
So… in the 3rd century - who would’ve felt more at home in an early Christian Church: a Catholic or a Baptist?
 
To the church, by examining what has been entrusted to the church (see also 1 Tim. 1). That is to whom the NT is addressed.
You mean to say the Catholic Church? I can’t look up you’re specific scripture quotes, because my Bible (Douay-Rheims) is formatted differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top