sola scriptura

[rfournier103]

Denise1957;10270311:

Oh, well…just that in order to be considered in the apostolic office, one must be a witness to the risen Christ. Someone challenged whether that was the case. I replied that that is why Paul brings up his personal instruction by Jesus to bear in Galatians; to show his having fulfilled apostolic requirements.

Was John Smyth a witness to the risen Christ?

 

[Traverse]

rfournier, I would think it’s actually quite clear that Paul is not a bishop, but a missionary. He never stays long at a particular church to oversee it, he’s always traveling. He leaves Timothy as a bishop, you could certainly argue (or at least a teacher of some kind) but to my knowledge Paul isn’t overseeing so much as spreading the word and admonishing what he does see and learns of. Wouldn’t a bishop need to stay put?

I cannot speak for gaelic, but the laying on of hands certainly transfers the holy spirit to a person as per new testament teaching, but it doesn’t necessarily describe the appointing of anyone (unless you could show me a passage somewhere that I’ve overlooked?). So when Paul has his hands laid on him by Ananias that isn’t really the same as him being appointed by Ananias. After all, Paul himself says that Christ called him as an apostle.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Eph. 2:20 states that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”

What builder stops construction after the foundation is finished? Doesn’t Paul ordain Timothy (Tim 1:6) with a laying on of the hands (as Catholic bishops do today)? How did Paul have the authority to do this? Paul was NOT one of the Apostles, was he?

Yes he was an apostle. Just not one of the original 12.

No, construction doesn’t stop once the foundation is set, but it doesn’t continue laying the foundation. It builds based on what has already been founded. Again, the faith has been delivered. It is not being delivered.

Even though Jesus appeared to Paul, he was ORDAINED by Ananias by the laying on of the hands:

Acts 9:17-20 So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Paul’s authority did not come from Ananias laying hands on him. Again I will refer you to the relevant passages in Galatians.

This verbal preaching in the synagogues sure sounds alot like oral preaching to me. Paul was called by Jesus to be a bishop, and was thusly ordained. Paul wasn’t preaching before Ananais “laid hands on him” was he?

I’m thinking that had a lot to do with him being blind and not having been instructed by Christ yet.

I realize, Bard, that there will be no convincing you of the FACTUAL historical succession that only the Catholic Church has.

Apparently the Orthodox and the Churches of the East, too. But their tradition contradicts yours.

I would like to ask you again where in the Bible Sola Scriptura may be found. And if Christians are to be commanded by the Bible alone, how can it be that so many Protestant ecclesiastical communities have so many different interpetations?

I can’t defend a strawman.

I am not a theologan, but is it possible that God can say one thing (through the Bible) yet mean many different things? I know I don’t think so. Also, how can centuries of Catholic scriptural study be wrong and YOU be right? The scriptures have been combed over in their original languages by men far more intelligent than you or I. What was the Christians’ authority before the Bible was published?

Who ever said I believe he meant many different things? Do you honestly think I believe other non-Catholic church bodies with which i disagree have teachings just as correct? Again, this is a straw man.

The revelation of Christ was their authority. That revelation is contained in Scripture. For the many posts that I’ve seen, I’ve yet to see one where an extra Scriptural teaching can be shown to have come from the apostles.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

What builder stops construction after the foundation is finished? Doesn’t Paul ordain Timothy (Tim 1:6) with a laying on of the hands (as Catholic bishops do today)? How did Paul have the authority to do this? Paul was NOT one of the Apostles, was he? Even though Jesus appeared to Paul, he was ORDAINED by Ananias by the laying on of the hands:

But since I’m assuming you will only accept a Catholic commentary on the passage, I will provide you with one:

Ver. 17.*Laying his hands on him.*This imposition of hands, made use of on different occasions, was to pray that he might receive his sight, as well as the grace of the Holy Ghost, which God sometimes gave to persons not yet baptized, as to Cornelius. (Acts x. 44.) (Witham) — This imposition of hands, was not the same as that, by which the faithful were confirmed, or ordained ministers, but a ceremony commonly used by the apostles to restore health to the sick. If Saul, in consequence, receives the Holy Ghost, it was an extraordinary miraculous event, which was not an unfrequent circumstance in the infancy of Christianity. The Almighty, who establishes the laws of grace, can dispense with them as he pleases.

A Catholic commentary on the Bible; Compiled by the late Fr. George Leo Haydock, folowing the Douay-Rheims Bible; 1859

 

[Denise1957]

Gaelic Bard, you have said that in order to be considered in the apostolic office, that one must to be a witness to the risen Christ. It was then asked of you by rfournier if John Smyth was a witness to the risen Christ. I was hoping that you would address this question.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic Bard, you have said that in order to be considered in the apostolic office, that one must to be a witness to the risen Christ. It was then asked of you by rfournier if John Smyth was a witness to the risen Christ. I was hoping that you would address this question.

Sure. No, he wasn’t, because unlike Paul he wasn’t able to verify his claim to having seen the risen Christ. No resurrections, no angelic appearances breaking him out of jail cells, nor was he a rabbi who persecuted Christians and then miraculously proclaimed Christ unto his own death. Also, unlike Paul, he wasn’t able to meet with other apostles who said that his gospel was the same as their own, even though he had no human instruction in it.

 

[Denise1957]

Sure. No, he wasn’t, because unlike Paul he wasn’t able to verify his claim to having seen the risen Christ. No resurrections, no angelic appearances breaking him out of jail cells, nor was he a rabbi who persecuted Christians and then miraculously proclaimed Christ unto his own death. Also, unlike Paul, he wasn’t able to meet with other apostles who said that his gospel was the same as their own, even though he had no human instruction in it.

Oh, but St. Paul did have human instruction. He witnessed the killing of St. Stephen before the Road to Damascus incident. He witnessed the shocking thing that St. Stephen said to his attackers before (or as) he was being killed. He was given a foretaste of one of the most important aspects of the Christian faith - that of forgiving one’s enemies.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure. No, he wasn’t, because unlike Paul he wasn’t able to verify his claim to having seen the risen Christ. No resurrections, no angelic appearances breaking him out of jail cells, nor was he a rabbi who persecuted Christians and then miraculously proclaimed Christ unto his own death. Also, unlike Paul, he wasn’t able to meet with other apostles who said that his gospel was the same as their own, even though he had no human instruction in it.

Gaelic,

There are 7324 people viewing this thread and you ignore me. No problem. I will provide insight as to why your thinking is incorrect so that those that encounter this thinking will know what it is and where it comes from as well as how to understand it.

First…

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Those lurking should know that Paul outlines the problem in Romans…

Note, that Denise, I and others have asked for Gaelic to prove that the Bible translation that he has is Scritpture and what is seen is silence…in answering all questions Gaelic never addresses this…

Formulation of our thoughts as we look in the world and as we communicate we Generalize, Delete and Distort. Gaelic does all of this. Not responding to the Proof requested in answers is called Deletion.

 

[Denise1957]

Note, that Denise, I and others have asked for Gaelic to prove that the Bible translation that he has is Scritpture and what is seen is silence…in answering all questions Gaelic never addresses this…

Formulation of our thoughts as we look in the world and as we communicate we Generalize, Delete and Distort. Gaelic does all of this. Not responding to the Proof requested in answers is called Deletion.

I agree.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic,

There are 7324 people viewing this thread and you ignore me. No problem. I will provide insight as to why your thinking is incorrect so that those that encounter this thinking will know what it is and where it comes from as well as how to understand it.

First…

Those lurking should know that Paul outlines the problem in Romans…

Note, that Denise, I and others have asked for Gaelic to prove that the Bible translation that he has is Scritpture and what is seen is silence…in answering all questions Gaelic never addresses this…

Formulation of our thoughts as we look in the world and as we communicate we Generalize, Delete and Distort. Gaelic does all of this. Not responding to the Proof requested in answers is called Deletion.

Bible translations are based on extant Greek copies of the NT manuscript and/or the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts of the OT. Since we both believe these are accurate to the originals, it’s irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

As to my ignoring you. Yes, that was intentional. I don’t respond to personal insults and condecension. That will continue to be the case. Blessings.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
The Bible does not interpret itself. It requires an infallible authority to that. It is the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture to which we must adhere because it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Yes, of course, the Bible is the word of God and should be held in the highest esteem. I have never said anything else.

The only point I am making is that it cannot be held higher than Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. It came forth from Sacred Tradition and is interpreted by the Magisterium. All three are sacred and necessary. It does one no good to possess the Scriptures if one is not capable of discerning the truth present there. Ultimately it is the Church to which we are bound.

That authority [of scripture] is not independent of the Church who told you that it was the word of God in the first place.

Can you please stop parroting the who told you, who decided, etc etc to me? I am Catholic, so please save your rhetoric… :hey_bud:

See post #502

From your posts it appeared that you were lacking this information.

God established His Church. HIS Church, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s. HIS Church. ALL glory is to God. We just happen to be in it by His Grace, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s. I am grateful for God’s Church and the men and women He has chosen to carry His work, not yours, mine, or anyone else’s.

Good for you. And you tell me this for what reason?

 

[CopticChristian]

Bible translations are based on extant Greek copies of the NT manuscript and/or the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts of the OT**. Since we both believe these are accurate to the originals,** it’s irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

As to my ignoring you. Yes, that was intentional. I don’t respond to personal insults and condecension. That will continue to be the case. Blessings.

Gealic,

This is relevant and I will continue. “Since we both believe” is a generalization. You have yet to explain how and why it is you believe. Your generalizations cloud the discussion. You don’t bother to clarify if we agree. You assume we agree. Your dialogue is infused with what you say is agreement and we don’t agree. You then launch into other generalizations, distortions and deletions coupled with yes/no thinking.

I believe Scripture to be based on the Septuagint and NT writings as declared to be Scripture by the authority of the OHCAC.

I have no idea how it is you believe the translation you have is authentic, truly Scripture, as you have no authority I know of to say so. I do know that you were indoctrinated to think so…as seen here by the Doctrinal Statement of LIberty University you attended.

liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6907

Doctrinal Statement, founded in 1971

We affirm that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, though written by men, was supernaturally inspired by God so that all its words are the written true revelation of God; it is therefore** inerrant in the originals and authoritative in all matters.** It is to be understood by all through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, its meaning determined by the historical, grammatical, and literary use of the author’s language, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

We affirm that a church is a local assembly of baptized believers, under the discipline of the Word of God and the lordship of Christ, organized to carry out the commission to evangelize, to teach, and to administer the ordinances of believer’s baptism and the Lord’s table. Its offices are pastors and deacons, and it is self-governing. It functions through the ministry of gifts given by the Holy Spirit to each believer.

You have generalized this before and it is clear that you Delete, Generalize and I shall show Distort.

You may want to reflect on this Doctrine. Who declared this doctrine and on what authority? Your doctrine says in the original and there are no originals as you only have a translation. How can you be sure, based on what authority that the incomplete translation is truly Scripture?

When you validate this then you can claim what we both believe and why other wise you generalize and the conversation is clouded. I need clarity.

Lurkers should notice that when someone with a Bible and an agenda has agreement that agreement is used to attack. Notice the attack on Apostolic succession after the agreement. This best way to defuse this is to not agree unless you want to trade verses back and forth, listen to someone other than the Church that has studied Patristics from the outside rather from the inside and conclude that the belief in Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible, based on that agreement. Who says it has to be in the Bible? This is what the agreement gets you. I shall later explain the fallacy of denial of the notion of Apostolic succesion based on Romans…

more to come with or without your response

Thank you

 

[Traverse]

Bible translations are based on extant Greek copies of the NT manuscript and/or the Masoretic and Septuagint manuscripts of the OT. Since we both believe these are accurate to the originals, it’s irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

As to my ignoring you. Yes, that was intentional. I don’t respond to personal insults and condecension. That will continue to be the case. Blessings.

I understand your lack of desire to respond to insults and condescending behavior. There’s unfortunately a lot of it on this board.

However, I will add that even though I’m more inclined to agree with you (though I am not baptist) how you know that the bible you have is scripture is relevant to the discussion. The reason it is relevant is because they’re trying to get you to say “I know it’s scripture because of the confirmed canon centuries ago at the church council” and then they will say “You accept the canon based on tradition and therefore you inadvertently confirm a necessity for there to be truth outside of the biblical text.”

I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak) but I won’t personally deny that it is a matter of tradition which preserves the text. I just don’t necessarily agree that the reason we have a bible is because of a council two hundred years after the writings were finished. But that’s my own project that I’m trying to research myself.

My point is that it’s a relevant discussion I think.

 

[SteveVH]

I understand your lack of desire to respond to insults and condescending behavior. There’s unfortunately a lot of it on this board.

However, I will add that even though I’m more inclined to agree with you (though I am not baptist) how you know that the bible you have is scripture is relevant to the discussion. The reason it is relevant is because they’re trying to get you to say “I know it’s scripture because of the confirmed canon centuries ago at the church council” and then they will say “You accept the canon based on tradition and therefore you inadvertently confirm a necessity for there to be truth outside of the biblical text.”

I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak) but I won’t personally deny that it is a matter of tradition which preserves the text. I just don’t necessarily agree that the reason we have a bible is because of a council two hundred years after the writings were finished. But that’s my own project that I’m trying to research myself.

My point is that it’s a relevant discussion I think.

You are correct that it is a relevant discussion. From a non-Catholic standpoint, seeing as the Scriptures are claimed as the sole authority (in most Protestant faith traditions, not all) it would seem more than relevant that one have a degree of certainty as to why they believe the writings to be the inspired word of God.

You also made an interesting comment: “I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak)”. How do you even know that it is complete? Who said so? Are the translations that exclude the deutercanonical books “complete”? If so, how do you know?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I understand your lack of desire to respond to insults and condescending behavior. There’s unfortunately a lot of it on this board.

However, I will add that even though I’m more inclined to agree with you (though I am not baptist) how you know that the bible you have is scripture is relevant to the discussion. The reason it is relevant is because they’re trying to get you to say “I know it’s scripture because of the confirmed canon centuries ago at the church council” and then they will say “You accept the canon based on tradition and therefore you inadvertently confirm a necessity for there to be truth outside of the biblical text.”

I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak) but I won’t personally deny that it is a matter of tradition which preserves the text. I just don’t necessarily agree that the reason we have a bible is because of a council two hundred years after the writings were finished. But that’s my own project that I’m trying to research myself.

My point is that it’s a relevant discussion I think.

Partly. The point that I have made numerous times in the thread is that the acceptance of the church is a part of the evidences we use to determine the authenticity of the texts as having apostolic origins. By definition if we determine that the texts have originated with the apostles, the teaching within it is divine because it comes from Christ. We determine that it is apostolic by evidence internal and external to the text itself. Internal evidences include such things as uniformity of doctrine across lines of over 40 authors, spanning 1500 hundred years of time; particular documents matching each others’ writing styles (Paul’s literary style in Ephesians matching the literary style of Romans); Does the text claim to be wriiten by a particular author? For example, Paul identifies himself in each of his epistles; does the text claim to be inspired Scripture? Peter refers to Paul’s writings this way. Paul refers to Luke’s writings this way. Is prophecy fulfilled from one historical narrative to another? Clearly yes.

External evidences include historical accuracy to what the text indicates happened. Does archaelogical evidence support the text. Does church history and tradition support a particular text as being apostolic. Do non-Christian sources affirm the events that are described in the text. Does the volume of extant manuscript copies demonstrate and accurately recreate what the original autographs said both in wording and content.

On all if these points the Scriptures give a resounding yes! It is the most well attested, well preserved document of the ancient world. When Catholics say they accept it only on the authority of the church, it creates an illogical situation. Because the church did not claim it was canon based on its own authority; but because of all the evidence I just provided.

The argument that we cannot accept any authority outside of Scripture is not what sola scriptura maintains.

As to translations, with over 6000 copies of the NT text discovered, there is a wealth of information that shows an accuracy to the originals offered by no other document in ancient human history.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I understand your lack of desire to respond to insults and condescending behavior. There’s unfortunately a lot of it on this board.

However, I will add that even though I’m more inclined to agree with you (though I am not baptist) how you know that the bible you have is scripture is relevant to the discussion. The reason it is relevant is because they’re trying to get you to say “I know it’s scripture because of the confirmed canon centuries ago at the church council” and then they will say “You accept the canon based on tradition and therefore you inadvertently confirm a necessity for there to be truth outside of the biblical text.”

I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak) but I won’t personally deny that it is a matter of tradition which preserves the text. I just don’t necessarily agree that the reason we have a bible is because of a council two hundred years after the writings were finished. But that’s my own project that I’m trying to research myself.

My point is that it’s a relevant discussion I think.

Hello,

If I may join in on this discussion.

As I asked Jon, there is the issue in stating that “Bible is the word of God” without another equal authority.

To explain, even if tradition had preserved until 392 AD, the Bible as the collection of books and letters as you know today, it still does not explain why it is the “word of God”. When we say something is the “Word of God”, it goes beyond the idea of it simply being written by the first Apostles. The best example would be Gospel of St. Luke. St. Luke was not an original Apostle.

So the idea that the councils merely upheld the belief that St. Luke for an example is the WORD of God doesn’t add up, yes?

This means, that another authority had to declare that it is the word of God. Now in history, the only person that has clearly proven the AUTHORITY regarding the transcendent/supernatural is Christ. The claim that the Bible is the WORD of God is also a claim that is transcendent/supernatural. We cannot verify it by some test.

Now this authority that presented the Bible as the word of God, must therefore be linked to Christ in someway as well as been an authority that was accepted by the faithful as late as Council of Hippo.

This is authority is that of Apostles and Apostolic Successors. Note here that Apostles did not have authority in and of themselves. They had the authority by virtue of the fact that they were Christ’s Apostles. The natural reasoning that leads you to the Apostles from Christ is that they were the students of the Rabbi Jesus. Then you assent completely to what they teach regarding Christ.

In the same way, you assent to the Apostolic Successors because they too have that same authority since they were the students of the Apostles (in the natural reason sense) and because they were instituted as successors (in the faith sense).

So when Council of Hippo pronounced that a certain set of books were inspired, the faithful didn’t have to debate. The Apostolic Successors had told them so.

In this way, Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Authority of the Church are all on the same plane. This is when you have two contradictory interpretations of a passage, you always side with the Church. The Church is what people always turned to for learning about Christ. It wasn’t the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist till 392 AD and it certainly wasn’t clear to the faithful that the Bible was inspired (i.e. Word of God) prior to that.

 

[SteveVH]

By definition if we determine that the texts have originated with the apostles, the teaching within it is divine because it comes from Christ.

Gaelic, what do you do about the Gospel of Mark, or Hebrews, or Jude, as far as having Apostolic origin?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You are correct that it is a relevant discussion. From a non-Catholic standpoint, seeing as the Scriptures are claimed as the sole authority (in most Protestant faith traditions, not all) it would seem more than relevant that one have a degree of certainty as to why they believe the writings to be the inspired word of God.

You also made an interesting comment: "I agree, for example, that the word, being complete, doesn’t need sacred tradition to flesh it out (so to speak)". How do you even know that it is complete? Who said so? Are the translations that exclude the deutercanonical books “complete”? If so, how do you know?

As regards its inspiration, with the prior evidences offered taken into consideration, even secular and atheistic scholars indicate that the NT presents us with a basically accurate presentation of the life and death of Christ. If we assume that it is at least accurate in a non-inspired way, we can see three realities that are relevant to the canon of Scripture as well as its inspiration:

Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus claimed the text of the OT was the word of God.
Jesus claimed the Holy Spirit would be with His apostles, guide them into truth (thus demonstrating their teachings would be His teachings; the NT contains their teachings).

The evidence is nigh irrefutable that Christ was raised from the dead. Thus making His first claim true.

This also means claims #2 and 3 are also true. Blessings.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Partly. The point that I have made numerous times in the thread is that the acceptance of the church is a part of the evidences we use to determine the authenticity of the texts as having apostolic origins. By definition if we determine that the texts have originated with the apostles, the teaching within it is divine because it comes from Christ.

The final claim is not that clear though.

Because it is from the first Apostles of Christ, we may say that it is important (in the natural reason sense where we learn from the student of a famous rabbi/professor/doctor/engineer/scientist etc). But, it is not clear that what they say and which writing they wrote is actually the WORD of GOD, right?

Also, St. Luke for an example was not an original Apostle. How do we reason that we should accept his writing as the Word of God? Now if Christians were simply insisting that we accept these books as historically good accounts of Christ, I will agree with you that we can maybe try and do what you propose.

But, our claim is much greater. We claim that it is actually the WORD of God. It is not just an accurate narrative account. Doesn’t this cause a problem for the way you suggest we can arrive at the Canon of scripture and it being inspired?

Also, do you think that any of the faithful came to accept the canon of Scripture and its claim that it is the word of God after studying the internal consistency of it? Or did they simply accept the authority of the Apostles and Apostolic Successors to teach?

Which seems more logical? That the faithful accepted truths (Bible is the Word of God for an example) by assenting to the authority of the Apostles (through natural reason since they accepted the authority of Christ and considered the Apostles his students) and their successors (students of the Apostles that were certified by them) OR whichever complex mechanism that you propose?

 

[Eufrosnia]

As regards its inspiration, with the prior evidences offered taken into consideration, even secular and atheistic scholars indicate that the NT presents us with a basically accurate presentation of the life and death of Christ. If we assume that it is at least accurate in a non-inspired way, we can see three realities that are relevant to the canon of Scripture as well as its inspiration:

Jesus claimed to be God.
Jesus claimed the text of the OT was the word of God.
Jesus claimed the Holy Spirit would be with His apostles, guide them into truth (thus demonstrating their teachings would be His teachings; the NT contains their teachings).

The evidence is nigh irrefutable that Christ was raised from the dead. Thus making His first claim true.

This also means claims #2 and 3 are also true. Blessings.

You had me till the Resurrection. Actually, you had me more till the idea that the Apostles all agreed on the Resurrection (it will take a bit more steps to show the Resurrection is true but it is not the topic we are discussing here).

But, the bolded part above is not clear. Jesus never asks anything to be written down let alone talk about anything like a text that will be considered as the WORD of GOD in the future. Also, St. Luke was not an original Apostles. So do you agree on Succession of Apostolic Authority? If you do, what makes you think this authority stops with St. Luke?