sola scriptura

[CopticChristian]

The evidence I would use is what I posted, Denise.

Gaelic,

Humor an old man…just summarize it and save all of us some time…

It should be easy for you to prove your positive assertion, as this is the way evidence works, based on your understanding of rational thinking, and then we can be done with your ability to

Prove you have the Word of God.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

Humor an old man…just summarize it and save all of us some time…

I did. I’m not going to retype it when I posted a link to a post where I did summarize it

 

[CopticChristian]

I did. I’m not going to retype it when I posted a link to a post where I did summarize it

Gealic,

Why didn’t you just say so…help out the crowd here…just post the number of the postings so we can see clear as day that you have proved what you assert with evidence that is without dispute…that you have proved that you have the Word of God…

Take your time…I do love to learn…

 

[Denise1957]

I did. I’m not going to retype it when I posted a link to a post where I did summarize it

The post seems to say that a debate about certain points of scripture is needed. But I don’t see how that’s proof.

 

[Denise1957]

Twist of scripture: believing that Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is symbolic.

Now there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, it’s not what the bible explicitly states, it’s not what the early church taught and it’s not what the Church has believed for 2,000 years.

It’s identical to the crowd leaving Jesus and Jesus turning to disciples and asking “are you too going to leave?”. St. Peter reponded, “to whom shall we go”? I’m not sure what evidence that I can provide if you won’t follow the words of Christ himself. Christ was clear on the Eucharist and never corrected those following him saying it was symbolic. And that is an apostolic teaching…

On a personal and charitable note… I am glad you are here…

I think you raise an important issue here, Porknpie. Clearly Jesus said that if we do not eat His Body and drink His blood, that we will not have life in us. Some people who found this hard to hear and take, so they left when Jesus said this. He acknowledged that it was indeed hard to take. If it were merely symbolic, it wouldn’t be hard to take. Also the original Greek (and I don’t recall the word) for “eat” in reference to Jesus’ body was more akin to the word “chew,” as an animal would chew (or a cow chewing it’s cud). It wasn’t symbolic. And that the early Christians mainly focused on the Eucharist is very important.

Jesus said that if we do not eat His Body and drink His blood, we will not have life in us. This was very important to Him. He never gave the same claim for reading the Bible, however. How can someone say that they have the Word of God, and yet dismiss this VERY important element?

 

[SteveVH]

You claim that my belief is subjective to my own interpretation, or it’s infallible.

What do you claim?

Epistemologically, you are no more certain than I. You claim to have a hierarchy which can interpret Scripture infallibly. That removes the interpretation question from the table.

Yes, and this claim is based upon the fact that Jesus gave the hierarchy of the Church (the Apostles), not just anyone, the power to bind and loose and promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. So the claim is not baseless.

However, what is just as fallible and uncertain as you claim my interpretation of Scripture is, is your fallible certainty that the hierarchy to which you submit is infallible to begin with.

My certainty lies in Jesus Christ, who founded a Church to which he granted immense and awesome authority. I believe the promises he made concerning that Church and I can historically identify that Church as the Catholic Church.

Unless you want to claim that your interpretation of history, tradition, and Scripture was infallible in determining that the Roman communion is the true, infallible church of Christ, as opposed to the Orthodox, Oriental, PNCC, Old Catholic, Sedevacantist, or independent Eastern communions, which also claim to have an infallible teaching authority.

I don’t believe it is unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the original Church. For over a thousand years the Catholic Church was the Christian Church, there was no other. The schism with the Eastern Orthodox is no small matter, but we share nearly identical doctrines, the differences being of relatively little importance. They may very well possess the charism of infallibility. As to the rest I would have to look more closely at the authority they claim. I just don’t know.

If you do claim your investigation into the authenticity of the magisterium is infallible, then you are no different than the Protestant who claims his interpretation is infallible (of which I don’t know any). Since I am assuming that you don’t claim that, your certainty of the truth of Rome’s claims is just as certain as mine.

You are correct that there is an element of faith to all of this, but there is also the element of reason and I see no conflict between the two in taking my postition. I believe that Christ was who he said he was. I believe he started a Church. I believe he gave great authority to that Church and I believe, based upon history, that the Catholic Church is that very Church. Now if one can present evidence as to how I am incorrect I am happy to consider it.

And if the division within non-Catholic churches is evidence of the insufficiency of Scripture to determine doctrine, I would assert that the division within the churches that claim to possess apostolic tradition, demonstrates the insufficiency of tradition.

Except there is a huge difference here. As I said, the doctrines of the Western and Eastern Churches are basically identical which means that our interpretations agree. Our differences are elsewhere, most especially in the area of papal primacy. The same cannot be said for the Protestant world, who disagree even on the most basic elements of Christianity (Baptism, the real presence, etc.)

I don’t reject the assertion that the church is the bride of Christ, or the pillar of truth (and I mean the church, not the hierarchy). What I reject is that the Roman Catholic Church is solely that bride.

I don’t think anyone would make that claim. We include all of the baptized under that title and place no limitation on who God will save.

 

[CopticChristian]

I did. I’m not going to retype it when I posted a link to a post where I did summarize it

I put it up there for you…Is this all you got?

We can start with an examination of the New Testament as if it were a purely human work that is, to the best of our knowledge, an accurate biographical account of the life of Christ and his teachings. Even most secular scholars will acknowledge this.

Jesus clearly indicated in various ways that the Old Testament was the word of God (his confrontation with Satan, his statements that he fulfilled OT prophecy, etc.). By definition the speech of God is inerrant and infallible. Jesus also claimed to be God. Through historical research and the reliability of the gospeks, we can conclude that Jesus rose from the dead and backed up his claim to be God. This would make his statements regarding Scripture to be true statements.

We can apply this to Jesus’ words to the apostles that they would have all of Jesus’ words brought to memory by the Spirit etc., and thus apply inerrancy and infallibility to the NT.

The NT gospels may be reliable. As someone looking from the outside how do you prove that Mark wrote Mark. How do you prove that they are reliable if you have no proof of the authenticity of Mark?

Who wrote Hebrews?

How do you prove that the 27 books of the New Testament are Scripture when in your proof you deny that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture. How do you prove that your assertion of 500 years duration is true?

How does someone know that the table of contents is true?

How does someone know that these 27 books as opposed to any others not included are Scripture.

If you want to prove your point you must say…the OT was compiled by whom and it was based on this…and that is why the Septuagint was the OT and 1500 years later we decided they were wrong, why I don’t know, but you should believe this because???

and you are Baptists…are you not? Well…aren’t Baptists descendants of the Aglican and the Anglicans broke from the Catholic Church…where do Baptists get the idea that they have the truth…Prove this.

Where does the book say that Research, Scholarship will be the truth and the way?

Prove this.

 

[PRmerger]

Gaelic,
…you probably have better experience with the good preaching…but hey, I am Ok with that…

Heh. True, that.

 

[aidanbradypop]

My :twocents:

I was raised Southern Baptist and was taught Scripture is the sole authority of faith. There was never a question in our house or community on tradition. Well until I asked it of course lol. For a denomination that was so much about Sacred Scripture, why was I unable to find any Scripture to support that theology? Many pastors that I presented the question to, told me that I was questioning God and that is damnable to Hell. SO I risked the fires of Hell and kept on searching. It brought me to the Catholic Church. Thanks pastors!

I believe Scripture is a wonderful gift from God and should be used in all that we do. I wish more was read in Mass but nothing stops me from reading it on my own. I study Scripture with others. The problem you face with subscribing to Scripture Alone is all the things the came before and after Scripture. We are even told in Scripture that there is not enough paper in the world to right down everything (I know it is not word for word lol) and Christ even told us that he has not explained everything. Some things are still a mystery. Those mysteries are slowly becoming known through the Church! Blessing!

 

[batman1973]

Heh. True, that.

Yo,Yo, dawg, It’s sup’oszed to be “Tru Dat”! Word, yo (or something, IDK, I’m too old)

 

[Porknpie]

My :twocents:

I was raised Southern Baptist and was taught Scripture is the sole authority of faith. There was never a question in our house or community on tradition. Well until I asked it of course lol. For a denomination that was so much about Sacred Scripture, why was I unable to find any Scripture to support that theology? Many pastors that I presented the question to, told me that I was questioning God and that is damnable to Hell. SO I risked the fires of Hell and kept on searching. It brought me to the Catholic Church. Thanks pastors!

I believe Scripture is a wonderful gift from God and should be used in all that we do. I wish more was read in Mass but nothing stops me from reading it on my own. I study Scripture with others. The problem you face with subscribing to Scripture Alone is all the things the came before and after Scripture. We are even told in Scripture that there is not enough paper in the world to right down everything (I know it is not word for word lol) and Christ even told us that he has not explained everything. Some things are still a mystery. Those mysteries are slowly becoming known through the Church! Blessing!

Aiden,

Did your Pastor(s) ever acknowledge that the bible was written by, from and about the Catholic Church, for correction and teaching, and to have a universal set of readings at Mass? I assume not.

But did they also respond to by what authority that they did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? If God provided heavenly manna in the desert to sustain his people in the OT, could he not provide the “Bread of Life” - Jesus - in the Eucharist, to sustain his people in the NT? Could the OT prototype (real heavenly food, manna) be less than the NT fulfillment (the bread and wine only being symbolic)? Nah. That’s not what the bible says, it’s not what the early Church wrote and believed and it is not what the Church has taught for 2000 years. And it would contradicts the bible stating that the Holy Spirit was going to lead the Church in ALL Truth. Catechism below…

The unity of the Old and New Testaments

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, **the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107 **

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Pork everything the Catholic Church teaches is false in their eyes. That was probably 20 yrs ago. I hear all the time from Protestants “if its not in the bible then its false teachings.” For people to be so biblically based, Scripture Alone is not biblically.

 

[PRmerger]

Yo,Yo, dawg, It’s sup’oszed to be “Tru Dat”! Word, yo (or something, IDK, I’m too old)

Or, I think I could say, “I affirm what you are proposing as being consonant with the truth!”

But I think from now on I’m going to use, “Tru, Dat”. I like that.

It will make my teenage daughters cringe.

And nothing makes me happier than doing that!

 

[benjohnson]

On a personal and charitable note… I am glad you are here…

Me two!

Gaelic Bard, even though I don’t agree with you in all things, I respect the way you comport yourself and in your understanding of your faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve -

I could feel your presence. I knew it wasn’t just Coptic that I was feeling. :hug3:

lol.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

What do you claim?

My interpretation is, of course, subjective. Along with everyone else who reads anything. You may agree with the interpretation of the church, but your choice to agree is also subjective and fallible. However, neither of us claim to determine what the doctrine of our respective churches happen to be. We either agree or disagree with them.

Yes, and this claim is based upon the fact that Jesus gave the hierarchy of the Church (the Apostles), not just anyone, the power to bind and loose and promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. So the claim is not baseless.

I don’t believe your claim is baseless, Steve. I have the utmost respect for Roman Catholic theology. What I don’t have respect for is triumphalistic claims to have an infallible interpretation when the claim is still based on one’s subjective, fallible choice to agree with it.

My certainty lies in Jesus Christ, who founded a Church to which he granted immense and awesome authority. I believe the promises he made concerning that Church and I can historically identify that Church as the Catholic Church.

Yes, He did grant immense powers to it. Being God, however, His authority is still greater. Therefore, the church is still regulated by His word. That is all sola scriptura asserts. Where we disagree is the nature of revelation lies and whether the CC can verify its claim of certain extra scriptural doctrine.

I don’t believe it is unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the original Church. For over a thousand years the Catholic Church was the Christian Church, there was no other. The schism with the Eastern Orthodox is no small matter, but we share nearly identical doctrines, the differences being of relatively little importance. They may very well possess the charism of infallibility. As to the rest I would have to look more closely at the authority they claim. I just don’t know.

Fair enough on you not knowing, but to claim the differences are small and unimportant is simply untrue. It’s not fair to the Orthodox when Catholics make this statement. Papal infallibility, papal primacy, head of the church on earth, purgatory, original sin, the immaculate conception, transubstatiation, the filioque, indulgences, thesaurus meritum, clerical celibacy, birth control, divorce et al., are not minor differences. You have even less in common with the Oriental churches, given the Chalcedonian disagreements. Either all of these things in Tradition are on the Roman side or the Eastern side. If any of those things favor either side, the other side is not infallible. And it’s your fallible decision to accept one over the others.

You are correct that there is an element of faith to all of this, but there is also the element of reason and I see no conflict between the two in taking my postition. I believe that Christ was who he said he was. I believe he started a Church. I believe he gave great authority to that Church and I believe, based upon history, that the Catholic Church is that very Church. Now if one can present evidence as to how I am incorrect I am happy to consider it.

You’re honest, Steve, and thus easy to converse with. No, I dont think your position is unreasonable. My only point is that, while reasonable, it’s no less your own interpretation and fallible than mine. You can convince me of the truth claims of Rome by presenting that evidence. What is not going to convince me is just repeating infallible, infallible over and over as if that is going to demonstrate anything. I know you haven’t done that.

Except there is a huge difference here. As I said, the doctrines of the Western and Eastern Churches are basically identical which means that our interpretations agree. Our differences are elsewhere, most especially in the area of papal primacy. The same cannot be said for the Protestant world, who disagree even on the most basic elements of Christianity (Baptism, the real presence, etc.)

I have less disagreement with Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans than you do with the East.

All I am saying is there is division on your side of the fence, too. Just as much disagreement over tradition as is scripture. Before stones are thrown at our divisions, fix the infallible glass houses first.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I should add as a PS Steve, I don’t discount your private and/or fallible decisions or interpretations. I would only ask that you not discount mine on the same basis, with the “that’s your interpretation” postmodern liberal drivel that Protestants have to hear everytime we engage Catholics on these topics. Words matter.

 

[SteveVH]

I should add as a PS Steve, I don’t discount your private and/or fallible decisions or interpretations. I would only ask that you not discount mine on the same basis, with the “that’s your interpretation” postmodern liberal drivel that Protestants have to hear everytime we engage Catholics on these topics. Words matter.

Gaelic, you are obviously very thoughtful and well educated in your faith. In fact, I really haven’t spoke with a Baptist that reaches your level, maybe ever. So I want to make it clear that I respect everything you say and do not discount anything lightly. Let me see if I can be clearer in my communication.

I am not aware of your view of the early Church, but let’s stick just with Scripture for the moment. The following things seem very clear to me from Scripture.

1. Christ started a Church, built upon Peter, to whom he gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
2. Christ gave incredible power to this Church; the power to bind and loose, not only on earth, but in heaven as well.
3. Christ gave the authority to forgive sins (or not to forgive sins, but hold them bound).
4. Christ promised that he would remain with this Church until the end of time.
5. Christ promised that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide this Church into all truth.
6. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

Now I realize that you are aware of these Catholic claims, but they are more than just claims, they are there, very clearly in Scripture, your sole authority. This Church definately still exists, if we believe the promises of Christ that he would remain with it until the end of time and the the gates of hell will never prevail. I can trace the apostolic succession of my bishops to the Apostles, specifically to Peter. Why would I not submit to this Church and to its teachings? I don’t think it unreasonable, in light of the evidence, to believe that this Church is the Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

I should add as a PS Steve, I don’t discount your private and/or fallible decisions or interpretations. I would only ask that you not discount mine on the same basis, with the “that’s your interpretation” postmodern liberal drivel that Protestants have to hear everytime we engage Catholics on these topics. Words matter.

Gaelic,

You want to promote that all you have is Scripture and we all know you cannot prove that you have Scripture and the biggest difficulty I have is that you are not using your translation alone…

You post…

I am quite confident this is why Martin Luther had such angst over it. Oddly enough, such concerns make the same mistake as some Catholics by assuming, wrongly, that James here is laying out a full orbed doctrine of justification.

Luther is a late comer to Christianity and he was Catholic. Your referencing Luther is suggesting that you are not looking at Sola Translation alone but weighing what others say and you are wrong the OHCAC has not errored.

That would, however, belay a grave misunderstanding of Reformed teaching. Truth be told, though, I’ve yet to meet a single Christian that actually belives this. Anecdotal, I know…but relevant.

Reformed teaching? What in the world is this supposed to mean in the context of Sola Translation? You want someone to believe that you rely only on your translation and you quote another Catholic Calvin.

I found the following quote by Lee Camp, author of Mere Discipleship, helpful:
Grace that is merely ‘forgiveness’ is what Paul calls ‘sinning that grace may abound’ (Rom. 6:1). Or is what Bonhoeffer called ‘cheap grace.’ Grace does not merely provide forgiveness so that we may be forgiven, but empowerment to be the people of God, to be the body of Christ, to continue the work and ministry of Christ in human history.

You quibble with the OHCAC/Magestierium and attempt to reference the division of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic…Latin/East as claiming Apostolic Succession…I agree that they all have Apostolic Succession and they all agree on 7 Sacraments and deny that all you need is a Bible. The theologians of all these groups are not individual persons and referencing Lee Camp and Bonhoeffer, is consistent with the notion that you do not rely on Sola Translation.

I did my undergraduate studies at Liberty University (a hot bed of Arminianism, which made life wonderful for this 5 point Calvinist Baptist!)

Do ya think that if you had studied at Stubenville you might have a different perspective. As you think and believe you think and believe as you were taught. The Bible alone? Please.

Another good perspective is by a mentor of mine, Dr. Tom Schreiner, Baptist theologian: Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp.603-605.

More Mentors, you want me and others to believe you came to understand whatever it is you understand with just a Translation of the Bible?

The divine authority to do what? To believe in the Trinity? I don’t believe in the Trinity because the council of Nicea or Cobstantinople addressed the question. I believe in the Trinity because the Scriptures teach the Trinity. Are the councils helpful? Absolutely.

You do a disservice to the history of the struggles the OHCAC had to deal with with Rogue Bishops like Arius. Nicea convened to provide solid teaching on the Trinity that Sola Translation has caused the likes of 7th Day Adventists, Oneness Pentacostals, Jehovah Witness and Mormons and you want me and others to believe that the Translation of the Bible you have is clear as a bell when it comes to the Trinity.

I myself am Calvinistic on those topics. I think there is a large misunderstanding among non-Calvinists about what we believe on the subject of reprobation

Calvin, Gailec say whoo, say whaa…he be wrong…dat God not be creatin folks for condemnation…ya all kiddin me…say fo shooo you is not bleivin dis…

The Belgic Confession of Faith summarizes it well:

I thought you relied only on the Bible Translation. This confession makes more sense and Belgium is now 58% Catholic after recovering from the deformation…

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

You want to promote that all you have is Scripture and we all know you cannot prove that you have Scripture and the biggest difficulty I have is that you are not using your translation alone…

Yes, from the thread on James 2 and justification. What that has to do with this conversation I’m none too sure. I never claimed that “all I have is Scripture.”

Blessings.