sola scriptura

[Gaelic_Bard]

Thanks Gaelic,

And how were the elders chosen by the Apostles?

From qualified men who belonged to the churches they founded. Hence why Paul goes into the detail he does in the pastoral epistles as to the requirements for elder and deacon.

 

[Traverse]

Traverse,

Your “we” is your Pastor… or is your Pastor and your whole congregation? Your Pastor teaches differently than the Pastor down the block and differently than the one across town. Everyone is disagreeing. How do you know that your Pastor has has the Truth?

We know that truth can be found because of Christ’s own words…that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church on earth to all truth. The Catholic Church makes this claim: teaches without error on faith and morals… and is protected by Christ in doing so until the end of time.

Let’s go back to 350AD. There was no biblical canon. But the one Church…there was only one, Catholic, was reading scripture and celebrating at Mass the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (actually you can read about this in scripture, way back at the apostolic age… and the Eucharist was celebrated at the last supper). The same Church canonized the bible a few decades later. The bible and John 6 has to be understood in this light, but your Pastor thinks they know scripture better than those who wrote it and were living its words.

It’s confusing that a church started in ~1912 can hold the truth that Christ spoke of. How do you know? Open the phone book…use google if you wish. Visit all the other churches and listen to all the other pastors in your town. They will all disagree.

The Truth can be found here and can be read for free on-line: scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Our particular congregation was established in 1912, not the church. The church has been around for over two thousand years. We make the claim to be a part of that church because we follow the teachings of the new testament.

I understand your confusion with authority and how you can’t shake the fact that you think whoever preaches in our building must have the authority to teach and that we are subject to that authority whether we like it or not. When I say we are not subject in this manner you have a hard time understanding that. I get that. And I’m sorry it’s hard for me to make clear. But I’d like you to consider this passage…

1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Scripture itself warns us to judge a man’s teaching in comparison to the words of Christ. To do that we go to scripture. They didn’t have to do that in the first century, they had the apostles they could have contacted directly as well as various gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid them. But today we have the complete bible and through prayer and study we can discern the truth form the text. If we pray for understanding will the Lord not bless us with it?

Just because there is a “pastor” down the street teaching a different message doesn’t mean I have to be confused about the quality of his teaching. I can compare it directly to the text that has been passed down to us. The bible is not, in my opinion, so complex that this is impossible to do.

Ephesians 3:4
By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ…

Now Paul is of course in context referring specifically to his writing to the Ephesians, but I believe this applies to all New Testament writings. They were written to Christians and sent to Christians. Why bother sending anything if a normal person cannot read and understand? What is the point of scripture if you think it’s practically unusable without a church hierarchy?

Just because some pastor in some church somewhere says something wrong like “divorce is okay no matter what!” doesn’t mean that he came to this conclusion because he couldn’t interpret the bible properly.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture itself warns us to judge a man’s teaching in comparison to the words of Christ. To do that we go to scripture.

Certainly. But we don’t go to ONLY Scripture. That’s, well, un-Scriptural.

Jesus’ “words” (that is, Divine Revelation) come to us in two forms: Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

To claim that Jesus’ “words” were contained wholly and entirely to the Scripture would be to prompt this question: “Where does the Bible say this?”

(Answer: nowhere.)

 

[PRmerger]

They didn’t have to do that in the first century, they had the apostles they could have contacted directly as well as various gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid them.

What about after the death of the last apostle and before the existence of the codex of the Bible? That’s about 400 years.

What did the Christians do then?

400 years. That’s like the time from when the Pilgrims arrived on Plymouth Rock until our present day without a Constitution! Can you imagine how long that is to not have a written rule or foundation?

 

[Porknpie]

Our particular congregation was established in 1912, not the church. The church has been around for over two thousand years. We make the claim to be a part of that church because we follow the teachings of the new testament.

Traverse, the Catholic Church was established 2,000 years ago by Jesus, and the Catholic Church today believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and apostolic succession handed on through Bishops through the laying of hands. You can claim all you want but you are not following the teachings of “that Church”. Put the bible aside and read what the Church was saying & believing before the bible ever existed. You think you know but you do not… www.scripturecatholic.com

I understand your confusion with authority and how you can’t shake the fact that you think whoever preaches in our building must have the authority to teach and that we are subject to that authority whether we like it or not.

No confusion. Show me in the bible where Christ said he would extend the fullness of Truth to a church 1900 years later. Show me how your church has apostolic succession all the way to St. Peter. Show me how your church is the PIllar and Foundation of Truth. Show me how your church knows better than the pastor down the street.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

Your church is taking a Catholic book, written by, for and about the Catholic Church and describing a different doctrine that what is in scripture and different than what that early “Church” believed. It is practicing solo scriptura as I’ve shown you. Your church website references 2 Timothy 16 to support this and yet 2 Timothy 16 says nothing about solo scriptura. This is a false teaching.

Scripture itself warns us to judge a man’s teaching in comparison to the words of Christ.

scripture verse? Your comment does not reflect scripture. What did the apostles do? They preached & proclaimed the truth everywhere they went. Nothing different here. Catholic’s don’t “judge” your eternal destiny, heaven or hell. That is scripture. But we do proclaim the truth in Christ. That is biblical.

To do that we go to scripture.

We go to scripture too…and the teaching passed on through the apostles to their descendants… Tradition

They didn’t have to do that in the first century, they had the apostles they could have contacted directly as well as various gifts of the Holy Spirit to aid them.

The Holy Spirit is still here providing many gifts. Just make sure you are bapitized.

But today we have the complete bible and through prayer and study we can discern the truth form the text.

No. You probably only have 66 books…missing books from the Old Testament, removed by a printing company. This is what that early Church had in 400AD…70 books. Again, you do not follow that early church, not fully.

if we pray for understanding will the Lord not bless us with it?

Authoritive understanding of the bible and the application to faith and morals comes from the Catholic Church as Jesus himself promised to lead his church to all Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)

Just because there is a “pastor” down the street teaching a different message doesn’t mean I have to be confused about the quality of his teaching. I can compare it directly to the text that has been passed down to us. The bible is not, in my opinion, so complex that this is impossible to do.

Your pastor and the pastors down the street aren’t even using the complete written Word of God. They are missing 7 books. Confusion reigns on faith and morals…every one is saying something different. How can you not be confused: abortion, contraception, baptism saved, infant baptism, OSAS … on and on.

Just because some pastor in some church somewhere says something wrong like “divorce is okay no matter what!” doesn’t mean that he came to this conclusion because he couldn’t interpret the bible properly.

How else did he come to that conclusion following solo scriptura? That’s a big contradiction because the bible says thou shalt not divorce.

Traverse, do you want to start a solo scriptura thread?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From qualified men who belonged to the churches they founded. Hence why Paul goes into the detail he does in the pastoral epistles as to the requirements for elder and deacon.

This is precisely what Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Bishops/Priests have been doing since that time. Not under the authority from Scriptures but from the teachings and doctrines that the Apostles talk about in the NT and outside of the new testament as they also indicate in Scriptures.

While Scriptures are indeed authoritative, they are authoritative with the Church. While I can empathize to an extent with the intention of taking man out of the equation when it comes to Church authority, I also need to understand that while Scriptures contain the Words of Salvation and Life Application, they are meant to be understood under the guidance of those our Lord has chosen. After all, He did establish a hierarchy with a group of men. Those men, followed suit after Pentecost under His guidance.

To that effect, Sola Scriptura joins Sola Fide in that they were never meant to be alone in the 1st place. After all, we are talking about relationships, Are we not? Under this light, all these factors function as one within the Church. Outside the Church, they are not as effective.

Thanks for your patience and God Bless.

 

[guanophore]

I agree!  What you may be overlooking is that in the first century, even while the bible was being completed, divisions were already happening.  The apostles were already warning against divisions among the church.  By the time the council of nicaea occurs over two hundred years pass, which is unfortunately plenty of time for the church to be split and some branch (catholic) to claim it is THE church even if it's not.

You are right, of course. And Jesus could see that coming, so He told the Apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against them, and that He would lead them into all Truth.

I’m not saying that happened, I am currently studying this myself. But I want to inform you that I agree with your claim that the church would have to be around and Christ with the church this whole time without another showing up and saying “oh we have the truth by the way” when they haven’t’ even existed.

Yes. Jesus only founded One Church, so the Church He founded has been there since the beginning, and has not fallen into error.

But there is currently a logical point based on scripture to show that divisions were happening earlier so a church calling itself catholic two hundred years later might not necessarily actually be THE church.

I can see your point. However, we have a consistent record from the successors of the Apostles that the Church called itself Catholic from the beginnine.

1 Cor 11:19-20
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.

Does not this statement imply that the disciples are already in posession of the criteria by which those who are genuine can be discerned?

This is something that is assumed as a possibility based on my views at looking at the catholic church in its current form, which claims to be unchanged, and seeing what appear to be scriptural errors in its teaching. With my own experience I cannot definitively point to a place in history and say “look, see.” Maybe I have to, but that is the matter I am currently investigating myself and part of the reason I’m on this forum.

May God richly bless your efforts.

I think you will find that what appear to be “scriptural errors” are really a matter of perceptions. Since the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures both came from the same Source (the Holy Spirit) there are no errors in either of them, and it is not possible for them to contradict one another.

 

[guanophore]

 Not in terms of coming to know it in our earthly lives. Revelation cannot precede reason because reason is what tells you something is revelation and something is not. Revelation cannot tell you that it is revelation. That is circular. **One cannot claim that revelation is identifiable by intuition because clearly, that is not the case in the real world. **

I this is a false statement. EIther that, or your definition of “intuition” is different.

Because you might be absolutly amazed by the amount of things we know by intuition in “the real world”.

 

[SteveVH]

Certainly. But we don’t go to ONLY Scripture. That’s, well, un-Scriptural.

Jesus’ “words” (that is, Divine Revelation) come to us in two forms: Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

To claim that Jesus’ “words” were contained wholly and entirely to the Scripture would be to prompt this question: “Where does the Bible say this?”

(Answer: nowhere.)

Abslolutely.

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
(John 21:25)

I always think about the discussion Jesus had with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Can you imagine hearing Jesus explain the Scriptures to you? The best Bible study ever. And then he sat down with them and when he broke the bread they recognized him and then he vanished. How does one imagine that the two disciples just kept everything He told them to themselves? Not a word of what was told to them is mentioned in the New Testament text, but certainly it was not kept from the Apostles who would have then handed down that teaching to their successors. The entire experience, after all, was really the first Mass. They read Scripture and had it explained (Liturgy of the Word) and then ate the bread, broken by Christ (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Thank God for Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I always think about the discussion Jesus had with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Can you imagine hearing Jesus explain the Scriptures to you? The best Bible study ever. And then he sat down with them and when he broke the bread they recognized him and then he vanished. How does one imagine that the two disciples just kept everything He told them to themselves?** Not a word of what was told to them is mentioned in the New Testament text, **but certainly it was not kept from the Apostles who would have then handed down that teaching to their successors.

I had never considered this. Quite a trenchant point, Steve!

In addition, we have the Scriptures which tell us that “And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.”—Acts 19:8

Logic dictates that 3 months’ worth of homilies could never have been contained to writing.

But Oral Tradition could certainly have preserved the 3 months’ profound and sublime words uttered by the magnificently erudite St. Paul.

The entire experience, after all, was really the first Mass. They read Scripture and had it explained (Liturgy of the Word) and then ate the bread, broken by Christ (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Thank God for Sacred Tradition.

Another point well made and something I had never considered. :bowdown:

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Abslolutely.

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
(John 21:25)

Unless Rome claims to have words and actions of Jesus not recorded in Scripture, I’m not sure of the relevancy of this to tradition.

“…but these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing may have life in His name.”

 

[guanophore]

Ok, I think I see what you're saying now.

We certainly don’t reject historical context and writings, but we can’t consider the ECFs binding because their writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit (or they’d be in the bible).

Where in the Bible does it claim that all the inspired writings are contained in it?

What prevents there from being other inspired writings that are not in the canon?

However, I do agree with you, and we don’t consider them inspired either, just authentic historical evidence of what the Apostles believed and taught.

You certainly misunderstand when you say we reject the authority of the church, for we don’t. However, we see the organization of the church as without a magisterium and with local self governing congregations. That is not to say that an elder from a church cannot comment on what is going on at another congregation, but that they’re going to talk elder to elder and not interfere with one elder’s own work.

This model is not consistent with the historical record.

v

with the 2 Timothy passage the key is “every good work.” If scripture is sufficient for EVERY good work then there is no need for anything else.

I agree with you, but then, that is not what it says.

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

What is it that equips? It is the teaching, the reproof, the correction and the training in righteousness that equips the believers for the work of the ministry. Scripture is inspired and “useful” in these tasks. But to whom did God give the responsibility of equipping the saints, using Scripture?

Eph 4:11-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

These duties are given to PEOPLE, not books, however Holy. In the hands of those gifted and authorized to do this teaching, reproving, correcting and training Scripture is useful.

If Jesus thought the Scripture was all that is needed, He would not have provided these other gifts to the church, and given THEM the duty of equipping the saints.

We don’t disagree on the necessity of preaching and spreading the good news and the early church holding to the traditions of the apostles.

Why?

If Scripture is all that is needed, why not just hand out bibles?

What we would say, though, is that when scripture was completed that those oral traditions were recorded so that we are equipped for “every” good work.

Then the establishment of a Church, with the gifts of ministers was a waste of His time, I guess.

We don’t see what purpose there would be to have a tradition and not write it down. This seems to be echoed by the catholic church as well, honestly, for while you hold to sacred tradition, your teachings are recorded in the catechism.

Perhaps you have yet to ponder how the stories in Genesis that predated Moses came to Moses?

Perhaps you have yet to ponder that the experience of Christ on the Cross defies containment in writing?

So it’s not a rejection of sacred tradition, but a belief that the tradition is recorded in God’s complete revelation.

Yes. Another Protestant innovation that cannot be found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says the opposite!

As to where the bible came from and if it’s a catholic book then why aren’t we catholic?

Exactly!

Why jettison part of the faith that was committed once for all to the Church?

I would agree that the church has interpretive authority, but not in that a select few making up a magisterium have that authority, but that all christians working together with honest hearts and scripture can work together and determine the appropriate meaning of the text through honesty and prayer.

It is interesting that you reject the structure that Jesus set up, in favor of your own.

vQUOTE=Traverse;10278598] We see secular history as having much value, but we don’t derive doctrine from that history not recorded in scripture.

But does not that extra-biblical history give witness to how the successors of the Apostles understood their doctrine?

 

[PRmerger]

Unless Rome claims to have words and actions of Jesus not recorded in Scripture, I’m not sure of the relevancy of this to tradition.

Yes, Gaelic, the Church does indeed make this very bold claim. It is none other than the claim to Sacred Tradition.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s just not factual, Steve. You can think the differences are minor, but the Orthodox beg to differ. The relative nature of the disagreements are not pertinent. Either the Holy Spirit is teaching the papal dogmas or he’s not. If you want to say he cant be guiding Baptists and Presbytetrians in different directions, that’s fine. I agree. Neither can he be doing so with the RCC and EO on the papacy. Yet you claim He’s guiding both of them regardless of the didagreements. You just won’t afford that to Baptists and Presbyterians. It’s a double standard.

From a sacramental viewpoint I would feel very at home in the EO. From a doctrinal standpoint I would also feel very at home. Yes, they have a different view of purgatory, but they believe it nonetheless. And yes, the Filioque. I can live with that, though I prefer the Catholic teaching. It wouldn’t send me running. The fact is they have a valid Eucharist, the real thing, and they believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ though they may differ in the language we use in transubstantiation (which is a human way of trying to describe a divine event). And yes, of course, the Pope.

The difference is this. I could never feel at home in an ecclesial community that rejects the Eucharist or any of the other sacraments. It would be absolutely empty. The difference is major and all-important. Yes, there was a schism, but you reject all that they have in common. Sorry, the children of the so-called Reformation, with few exceptions, have strayed so far from the original Church that there is simply no comparison to the relationship between the CC and the EO.

 

[PRmerger]

If Scripture is all that is needed, why not just hand out bibles?

True, that.

One has to wonder what the purpose is for Wednesday evening Bible study, or for pastors to attend Bible college. Why not just tell everyone, “Read the Bible, folks! It’s all you need!”

In fact, I wonder if any Bible Christian would allow a stranger off the street to come and preach at his church, if this stranger simply said, “Why, I’m a follower of Christ and I preach from the Bible!”

Nope. No church elder would be foolish enough to allow someone to preach at his church simply based on the fact that he says he preaches from the Bible. :nope:

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

From a sacramental viewpoint I would feel very at home in the EO. From a doctrinal standpoint I would also feel very at home. Yes, they have a different view of purgatory, but they believe it nonetheless. And yes, the Filioque. I can live with that, though I prefer the Catholic teaching. It wouldn’t send me running. The fact is they have a valid Eucharist, the real thing, and they believe they are consuming the body and blood of Christ though they may differ in the language we use in transubstantiation (which is a human way of trying to describe a divine event). And yes, of course, the Pope.

The difference is this. I could never feel at home in an ecclesial community that rejects the Eucharist or any of the other sacraments. It would be absolutely empty. The difference is major and all-important. Yes, there was a schism, but you reject all that they have in common. Sorry, the children of the so-called Reformation, with few exceptions, have strayed so far from the original Church that there is simply no comparison to the relationship between the CC and the EO.

Steve…okay, not according to the OCA website…heck they’re still undecided whether you have sacramrnts, but I am not going to argue the East/West differences. Let the EO do that. Regardless, differing dogma is differing dogma. I could go through the minutiae of describing just how similar Baptists and Presbyterians and Anglicans are, too. The point still stands. You have a double standard. One for self asserted apostolic churches and one for Protestants. You allow that the Spirit is leading them but not us because we disagree, even though yours disagree just as vociferously, if not more so. That’s your right, of course. I’m just pointing out that the statement doesn’t carry much consistent weight.

 

[batman1973]

If Scripture is all that is needed, why not just hand out bibles?

People do just hand out bibles. Happens all the time. This discussion is getting tired. No one is going to convince the other of their position. It’s nice to discuss, but points and counter points were made several posts ago. This thread is just going in circles.

 

[stewstew03]

I am not the one making the claim to exclusivity, Steve. I do not believe it was the RCC, the EO or the Baptist church, as we know them today. I can’t prove a negative

At the risk of repeating questions that have been asked and answered… Where is the early Church? If it’s not any of the orthodox churches or reformed churches… where is it? What happened to it?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

At the risk of repeating questions that have been asked and answered… Where is the early Church? If it’s not any of the orthodox churches or reformed churches… where is it? What happened to it?

Fractured all over the place. To look at any one institution present today and say…thats the early church! is just an anachronism. Aside from the fact that the early church was never monolithic on anything.

 

[SteveVH]

Unless Rome claims to have words and actions of Jesus not recorded in Scripture, I’m not sure of the relevancy of this to tradition.

We have the teachings of Christ given to us by the Apostles, both orally and in written text. The Church never contemplated people taking the written text and excluding all else that was taught by the Apostles. They never intended for the New Testament to be an exhaustive list of all that was taught. This is a very modern and erroneous notion.

Why do you imagine that the Church, from the earliest of times, has celebrated the Mass and believed the Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ? The schism didn’t change that. Not even the Lutherans or the Anglicans wanted to change that. Yet you reject it because you cannot find it specifically spelled out for you in the scriptures (though it is spelled out very well). Shouldn’t one think twice before throwing away that which the Church has held sacred since its inception?