sola scriptura

[JonNC]

Good!

In that case and from your 2nd premise, being that God breathed on the Apostles and the Apostles planted Christ’s Church. Then it is clear that **Sola Ecclesia **needs to be added to the infallibility formula. Being that your conclusion reads:

Therefore, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church AND Scriptures are infallible rules of Faith, since they are both breathed by God. Both together!

Interesting analysis. Of course, sola ecclesia would not be sola papa.

Jon

 

[berrytc44]

Travis,

Are you referring to the Scripture that the OHCAC says is Scripture or to the Protestant translation that is defecient and cannot be proved is Scripture?

What is it you believe that must be proved by Scripture and why is that only Scripture must prove anything?

The Scriptures that the OHCAC has only has kernels of information about the Catholic Church. Concerning the words of the Apostles what is it you believe that only words convey? Is it only by words that we communicate? If you answer yes then your thinking is void of how humans communicate and recieve information. Have you not heard, actions, speak louder than words? If they were baptizing babies, someone saw them baptizing babies and they said they should baptize babies, does a single word need to be recorded to continue that practice?

Jesus isn’t giving any test. Jesus is saying that a particular tradition like Sola or Solo Scirptura that is not found in any Bible I know of Violates Apostolic Tradition and teaching of the Church.

#1 When you say “Solo Scriptura” you are immediately admitting that you don’t know what Sola Scriptura is. #2 You say that people communicate in more than just words and that is true. The problem is that God has given us the written word to communicate his truth to his people. He did this so that his people would have an unchanging truth to go back to. That is why Jesus refers back to the Scriptures when dealing with the false teachers of his day. Here is a good question for you. #3 Jesus constantly refers back to the OT when challenging the Pharisees. How could Jesus do this when there was no Roman Magisterium to define what was and what wasn’t Scripture? #4 Regarding your question on why we trust only in Scripture is this…it is the only way we can know what the Apostles taught. As I mentioned in my post the CC has not infallibly defined any words of the Apostles outside of what is given to us by Scripture. The only way to know what they actually taught is by the eyewitness accounts.

-Travis

 

[berrytc44]

Incidentally, Paul preached in one temple for the period of 3 months, so clearly all of what he preached could not have been contained in the Scriptures.

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

Oral Tradition is required for that, no?

PRmerger,

Can you point me to any infallible source, outside of Scripture, that can tell us what Paul preached for 3 months? If not then why do you assume it was the oral traditions that the CC believes in?

-Travis

 

[SteveVH]

#1 When you say “Solo Scriptura” you are immediately admitting that you don’t know what Sola Scriptura is.

#2 You say that people communicate in more than just words and that is true. The problem is that God has given us the written word to communicate his truth to his people.

No, he gave us a Church to communicate his truth to his people. “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And this Church collected what it believed to be inspired texts, the truth of which was meausred against the deposit of faith given to the Apostles, the truth already present in the Church. It determined which texts were inspired and which were not (examining around 400 documents). The written word, even after being verified as “inspired”, was not common among the population. Very few were literate to begin with and we had no printing presses. The entire Bible (392 A.D.) had to be very carefully copied by hand and so they were scarce, and usually kept only in the Churches, under lock and key due to their value. But for the first 400 years of Christianity, there was no canonized Bible and very few copies of the actual texts floating around. The truth was taught to the people by the bishops of the Church. Statues and eventually stained glass was used to tell the Good News to an illiterate people. The written word was not common until after the printing press was invented some 1400 years later.

#3 Jesus constantly refers back to the OT when challenging the Pharisees. How could Jesus do this when there was no Roman Magisterium to define what was and what wasn’t Scripture?

Ummm… lets see. Because he was Jesus maybe.

#4 Regarding your question on why we trust only in Scripture is this…it is the only way we can know what the Apostles taught. As I mentioned in my post the CC has not infallibly defined any words of the Apostles outside of what is given to us by Scripture. The only way to know what they actually taught is by the eyewitness accounts.

-Travis

Do you know what Paul preached about for 3 solid months in the Temple? Do you know what Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Do you think these things are of no importance or do you think that the Apostles might have been aware of them, and maybe mentioned something to the other bishops. How did the Catholic Church come up with the liturgy for Mass? That isn’t really laid out specifically in the Bible and was a part of the Church’s life before a word of the New Testament was written. In fact, no doctrines of the Church came to be because of the written word. They were confirmed by it, but did not derive from it. Rather they derived from the teachings of the Apostles, both orally and in writing.

 

[JonNC]

Do you know what Paul preached about for 3 solid months in the Temple? Do you know what Jesus taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus? Do you think these things are of no importance or do you think that the Apostles might have been aware of them, and maybe mentioned something to the other bishops. How did the Catholic Church come up with the liturgy for Mass? That isn’t really laid out specifically in the Bible and was a part of the Church’s life before a word of the New Testament was written. In fact, no doctrines of the Church came to be because of the written word. They were confirmed by it, but did not derive from it. Rather they derived from the teachings of the Apostles, both orally and in writing.

Steve,
Two questions:

1. How do we know what was said in these? Is there a specific delineation? Bishop “A” told Bishop “B” who told Bishop “C” about “X” which was not written down, so to speak?
   IOW, how do we know what actually said? (And yes, I know we could say the same about what was actually written, too.)
2. The apostles and their disciples, and the ECF’s seem to have been rather prolific in writing important things down. Why, do you surmise, did they not write other things down that could have been important to the Church in the future, particularly considering their being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Jon

 

[berrytc44]

Steve,

You missed the point of my question. How could anyone, before the Roman Church know what was Scripture or not? Jesus, assumed they should know. How could they know without an infallible guide?

Also, you said that the CC teachings are derived from oral and written tradition. Where is the proof of these traditions? If you say its true because the Roman Catholic Church says so then you are engaging in circular reasoning because many of the oral traditions you speak of involve the infallibility of the Pope and the liturgy of the church.

-Travis

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Steve,

You missed the point of my question. How could anyone, before the Roman Church know what was Scripture or not?

Who was Jesus talking to about Scriptures?
Pharisees, Saducees, Satan, etc. They knew what Scriptures were because they were God’s people and designated to guard them (Not Satan, lol).

Jesus, assumed they should know. How could they know without an infallible guide?

Jesus didn’t assumed anything. He knew everything. They had several writings that were considered Scriptures (OT).

Also, you said that the CC teachings are derived from oral and written tradition. Where is the proof of these traditions?

You need to do your homework as well.

[bibledrb]Matthew 16:2-3[/bibledrb]

Look at the witnesses of the Church throughout history. Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Flavious Josephus, Origen, and so forth.

Like, Why do we celebrate Mass on Sunday? Look at Justin Martyr for one of the best Church Apologetics ever recorded.

Some Protestants talk about Faith Alone as if it was invented in the 16th century. Look up I Clement.

You have to realize that Christ’s Church has been in this world since the Apostles. Who was this Church? Who did God choose to keep His people like He has from the beginning? Who were these men and women? Is there such a thing as a continuation of these Sees?

It’s all there for you to see, if you want to.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Who was Jesus talking to about Scriptures?
Pharisees, Saducees, Satan, etc. They knew what Scriptures were because they were God’s people and designated to guard them (Not Satan, lol).

You’re exactly right, Isaiah…

But if the Jews (and not just the Pharisees and Sadducees) knew they had Scripture yet did not have an infallible body telling them it was Scripture, then why does the church need an infallible body telling them what Scripture is in order to know it has it?

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that God has given us the written word to communicate his truth to his people.

Sure. This is very Catholic.

He did this so that his people would have an unchanging truth to go back to.

Well, not that I disagree with this…but can you show the book, chapter and verse that says that God gave us the written word so we would have an unchanging truth to go back to?

That is why Jesus refers back to the Scriptures when dealing with the false teachers of his day. Here is a good question for you. #3 Jesus constantly refers back to the OT when challenging the Pharisees. How could Jesus do this when there was no Roman Magisterium to define what was and what wasn’t Scripture?

If that proves anything, it proves that Jesus used the OT. Only.

So what you seem to be arguing for is Sola Old Testament? Yes?

#4 Regarding your question on why we trust only in Scripture is this…it is the only way we can know what the Apostles taught.

This is a man-made tradition that you’ve been duped into believing, berry. You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, but no one ever read that in a single page of the Scriptures.

You can search Genesis to Revelation and you’ll never find “Scripture is the only way we can know what the Apostles taught” in a single page.

As I mentioned in my post the CC has not infallibly defined any words of the Apostles outside of what is given to us by Scripture.

Authoritative does not equal infallible.

Moses was not infallible when he led the Israelites through the Promised Land, and yet he still had the authority to lead them.

The only way to know what they actually taught is by the eyewitness accounts.

This is problematic for you, berry, because that eliminates:

the Gospel of Luke
the Gospel of Mark
Hebrews.

None of those say anything about the author being an eyewitness.

In fact, Paul was not an eyewitness of the physical Christ. So that would eliminate all of Paul’s writings, no?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

Can you point me to any infallible source, outside of Scripture, that can tell us what Paul preached for 3 months? If not then why do you assume it was the oral traditions that the CC believes in?

-Travis

vatican.va/

 

[PRmerger]

Steve,

You missed the point of my question. How could anyone, before the Roman Church know what was Scripture or not?

Actually, they did not know. There were some disagreements about the canon of Scripture.

But the understanding of what was Scripture and what was not was passed on through…

Oral Tradition.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You’re exactly right, Isaiah…

But if the Jews (and not just the Pharisees and Sadducees) knew they had Scripture yet did not have an infallible body telling them it was Scripture, then why does the church need an infallible body telling them what Scripture is in order to know it has it?

How would you know if it didn’t? The law alone couldn’t save. With all their Scriptures throughout their history and they proved that with Scriptures alone, Salvation can’t be attained.

They had the Law, the Prophets, and Wisdom Literature and still they missed the while point. The purpose of Scripture is to testify about Christ. Christ chose a group of men to carry out His work and care for His Church, His bride.

If it wasn’t for the Church, How would we have been able to discern what is inspired or not? I mean, the Holy Spirit didn’t give us an index or a list. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into these men, who in exchange designated other men, and it has been that way since the beginning of the Church. The Church is here to guide us under God’s supervision.

I personally don’t need infallibility, all I need is Christ and His Church.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

How would you know if it didn’t? The law alone couldn’t save. With all their Scriptures throughout their history and they proved that with Scriptures alone, Salvation can’t be attained.

They had the Law, the Prophets, and Wisdom Literature and still they missed the while point. The purpose of Scripture is to testify about Christ. Christ chose a group of men to carry out His work and care for His Church, His bride.

If it wasn’t for the Church, How would we have been able to discern what is inspired or not? I mean, the Holy Spirit didn’t give us an index or a list. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into these men, who in exchange designated other men, and it has been that way since the beginning of the Church. The Church is here to guide us under God’s supervision.

I personally don’t need infallibility, all I need is Christ and His Church.

Isaiah, you’re contradicting yourself. You basically said “the Jews knew what Scripture was. So how are we going to know what Scripture was without the Church?” No one is saying the Jews understood all of what Scripture meant in relation to Christ (though many did). Regardless of that they still knew that what was on their scrolls was God’s word. And they didnt have an infallible teaching authority.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah, you’re contradicting yourself. You basically said “the Jews knew what Scripture was. So how are we going to know what Scripture was without the Church?” No one is saying the Jews understood all of what Scripture meant in relation to Christ (though many did). Regardless of that they still knew that what was on their scrolls was God’s word. And they didnt have an infallible teaching authority.

I’m not contradicting myself Gaelic. I completely ignored the question because I don’t know outside of Ezra and I am not well versed in Jewish theology. The point I was trying to make is that you need an authority designated by God to know what is and isn’t Scripture. A book can say whatever is written down on it. Unless an authority validates it, it is all speculation.

 

[Porknpie]

Isaiah, you’re contradicting yourself. You basically said “the Jews knew what Scripture was. So how are we going to know what Scripture was without the Church?” No one is saying the Jews understood all of what Scripture meant in relation to Christ (though many did). Regardless of that they still knew that what was on their scrolls was God’s word. And they didnt have an infallible teaching authority.

Gaelic, did the Jews agree to what was Gods word? They all had the same OT canon?

 

[batman1973]

Yes, there are some that just hand out bibles, but the persons that do so belong, as you do, to ecclesial communities where peopel gather for fellowship, teaching, celebration etc. And from reading your own posts, it seems clear that you value your ecclesial community as a source for many things other than the distribution of bibles.

You may be getting “tired” of it,but it is our responsibility to point out this grave inconsistency as often as it appears.

Okay, let’s see what we’ve learned here: The Protestant position is that the deposit of faith rests solely in Sacred Scripture, and that every point of faith, and doctrine, and tradition (little t, or big T) must come from, and/or conform to Sacred Scripture.

The Catholic position is one that Sacred Scripture alone is not enough, and that with Sacred Tradition, handed down from the Apostles and their succesors interpreted from the infallible oraganism of the Church, known as the Magistrarium, holds the deposit of faith.

I miss anything? Like I said, this thread is over cooked, and done. It should really be closed. Steve, Guan, Isaiah, Pork, PR, you haven’t convinced anyone of your argument. Gaelic, Itwin, myself, and other Protestants here haven’t convinced you of our side.
It’s all circular at this point.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Gaelic, did the Jews agree to what was Gods word? They all had the same OT canon?

With the exception of the Sadducees (who only existed for about 250 years), yes. It’s as irrelevant as liberal Catholics who deny the the canon today. The fact is, even if you want to include the Sadducees, at a minimum, the Torah was recognized. This could not have been possible if the paradigm you provide is true.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
Two questions:

1. How do we know what was said in these? Is there a specific delineation? Bishop “A” told Bishop “B” who told Bishop “C” about “X” which was not written down, so to speak?
   IOW, how do we know what actually said? (And yes, I know we could say the same about what was actually written, too.)
2. The apostles and their disciples, and the ECF’s seem to have been rather prolific in writing important things down. Why, do you surmise, did they not write other things down that could have been important to the Church in the future, particularly considering their being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Jon

The point I am trying to make, Jon, is that not everything that Jesus said and did or that the Apostles said and did was written down. So when one assumes that all we need is the Bible, they assume too much; that what was taught outside of that which is recorded in Scripture is unimportant. The liturgy, the sacramental life of the Church, existed prior to the New Testament Scripture even being written. Where did the Church learn this? Both the liturgies and the sacraments are completely foreign to many Protestants. They can’t find it in the Bible. When we try to make the case for the Eucharist from the New Testament, most Protestants can’t see it. These things, and more, were first taught to us by the Apostles and some of what they taught was written down.

 

[SteveVH]

The point I was trying to make is that you need an authority designated by God to know what is and isn’t Scripture. A book can say whatever is written down on it. Unless an authority validates it, it is all speculation.

 

[guanophore]

It’s more a common sense conclusion. Oral tradition isn’t going to survive that long with much accuracy. Now if the tradition is preserved by the holy spirit that’s another matter, but I also don’t see evidence for that conclusion. If there is, please show me.

How did the account of salvation history get from Adam to Moses?

You sure don’t seem to have much confidence in God being able to protect His Word.
1 Thess 2:13

13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

God placed His Word in the Church by the Apostles. He is able to guard and to keep it there/ It will remain there, infallible, until He comes again.

Isa 55:11
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Why do you reject the teaching of Jesus on this matter?

Matt 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

God’s purpose in giving His Word to the Church was to purify her. When she is joined to the bridegroom at the end of the age, His purpose will be completed.

There wasn't a gap between the existence of the bible and the death of the last apostle.  It doesn't make sense for the writings, which we know for certain were in existence, to have been ignored for 200-400 years.  The church, gifted with the holy spirit, would have the ability to discern them right away.  Why wouldn't it?

So you can trust the HS to lead the church into discerning which writings are Holy Scipture, ,but you can’t trust the HS to maintain the Word of God in the believers?