sola scriptura

[guanophore]

Sure. The super early writings anyway. The further you are removed from the original apostles the less I trust anything popping up hundreds of years later to be a reliable teaching of the apostles supposedly passed down.

Then how can you possibly trust the doctrine of the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the canon of the New Testament? How do you explain that your ecclesial community meets on Sunday?

The fact is that you have already accepted as infallible many doctrines not developed in the first two centuries.

 

[CopticChristian]

#1 #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

Travis,

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.

I am not saying Sola, Solo, or any such nonsense. Whatever you want to call it, it is a Bible translation that cannot be proved to be Scripture, end of story. Whatever belief you have concerning a translation without proof that it is Scripture then all you say is nonsense.

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 you state a problem. Are you sure that this is a problem? Is it a problem that God communicates truth? You somehow believe and state that he gave the written word. On what basis is it that you base this? Please do not refer to any translation of a book, because until you prove it is Scripture it is nonsense.

You say He did this to have unchanging truth. Where did you learn this? Have you spoken to God? Do you know the reason the Original Scriptures were written? If you know, how is it you know? Where did you learn this? Do not refer to any translation of a book you cannot prove is Scripture.

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?

This is thoughtful of you. You are thinking that I might like a good problem. Jesus refers to the OT, as does Paul. If you read the Book of Romans, Paul refers constantly to the OT, Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah and the Prophets. Paul learned from Jesus. You ask how is it that Jesus referred to the Pharisees and there was no Magesterium… I know. I have an answer. The Bible, the book, that the magesterium declared to be Scripture, the book, that I believe to be the Word of God, complete with the Deuterocanonicals, because the Church declared it so, in Matthew 16, says…“I will build my Church”…see here the verb in the aorist…future…in other words He hadn’t built it yet…

3618 [e]
oikodomēsō
οἰκοδομήσω
I will buildV-FIA-1S

οἰκοδομέω, οἰκοδομῶ; imperfect ᾠκοδόμουν; future οἰκοδομήσω; 1 aorist ᾠκοδόμησα (ὀικοδόμησα

#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.

Boy, you sure are stuck on words. We communicate with words, pictures, bodies…or Audio, Visual, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory…we communicate with all our senses and our bodies…

I mentioned, watching and learning that babies are baptized, baptizing babies, and then continuing that practice requires little in the way of words…

Now that I have answered your questions answer a few of mine…

Is Theft, Disobedience to God, Lying, spreading rumors and declaring to destroy another person a sin?

Next, do you believe the following…

Christ is truly God, He was not made, He was begotten and is the same essence as the Father. Yes or No?

Jesus is fully divine and fully human and without sin and that Mary bore Him. Yes or No?

Christ has two natures. Yes or No?

Christ has two will human and divine corresponding to the two natures. Yes or No?

God is triune, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes or No?

Thank you…

 

[PRmerger]

I miss anything? Like I said, this thread is over cooked, and done. It should really be closed.

I find your obsession with declaring the necessity of thread closures to be peculiar.

There is no need to announce that you feel the subject has been resolved. You may simply and quietly leave the thread and let others marinate in the thread, if that’s what they enjoy, until the mod makes the decision to close it.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yep. That’s pretty much the synopsis.

Except that the Protestant position, of necessity, must accede to Sacred Tradition each and every time a Protestant quotes from the Scriptures. For the Scriptures did not come with a table of contents.

One requires Sacred Tradition for that.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

What they used was oral tradition to discern the inspiration of the ancient texts.

 

[PRmerger]

These things, and more, were first taught to us by the Apostles and some of what they taught was written down.

 

[berrytc44]

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.

If you need an authority to tell you what’s Scripture, then what authority gave your authority the authority? See, the Catholic has the same issue to deal with because we are discussing ultimate authorities here. The problem for you is that the CC has erred countless number of times, while the Scriptures have remained the same.

-Travis

 

[PRmerger]

If you need an authority to tell you what’s Scripture, then what authority gave your authority the authority?

Sacred Tradition did, berry.

 

[PRmerger]

IThe problem for you is that the CC has erred countless number of times, while the Scriptures have remained the same.

-Travis

Perhaps if you could offer what errors the Church has done?

Now, we will acknowledge that members of the Church have not followed Christ’s teachings, but what errors has the Church actually taught?

 

[berrytc44]

Sacred Tradition did, berry.

Who defines what sacred tradition is?

 

[PRmerger]

Who defines what sacred tradition is?

The Apostles did. And passed this* kerygma *on to their successors.

 

[CopticChristian]

What they used was oral tradition to discern the inspiration of the ancient texts.

Merge,

The Sadducees were sola Scripturists…and incomplete Sola Scripturists at that…sound familiar…and here is what Jesus said…

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

Jesus recognizes that the Scriptures (no matter how complete or incomplete) are meant as an instrument to draw us nearer to God. The fact that the Sadducees were missing out on a lot of Scripture was a problem. The fact that they ignore the Scriptures they have is a bigger problem. When Jesus says to them, **“you are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God,” **He’s not complaining that they don’t have the Book of Daniel, but that they don’t read the Book of Exodus, which they do have. Protestants remain ignorant that there was more of the word of God out there and adhere to the Translation that they cannot prove is the word of God denying the OHCAC that he said He would build.

 

[CopticChristian]

Who defines what sacred tradition is?

Berry,

Hey…bro…ma man…yo dude…ya haven’t answered my posting…go back…

 

[berrytc44]

Berry,

Hey…bro…ma man…yo dude…ya haven’t answered my posting…go back…

Dude…this is a Catholic forum. For me to respond to everything isn’t possible.

 

[berrytc44]

The Apostles did. And passed this* kerygma *on to their successors.

How do you know what was passed down?

 

[CopticChristian]

How do you know what was passed down?

Berry,

Just read the Catechism…that is easy…the Audio version is really good… I suggest you start with this…

 

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by batman1973
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.

Bat,

State both positions again, this time with the year sitting at 300ad.

Do the same at 400ad and 500ad.

At what AD does the view above match the view of the Church that canonized the bible?

 

[JonNC]

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.

Yes, Steve. I understand, and in many ways, I agree.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

How do you know what was passed down?

The same way you do, berry: through the paradosis. Some of it was written down. But not all of it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you need an authority to tell you what’s Scripture, then what authority gave your authority the authority? See, the Catholic has the same issue to deal with because we are discussing ultimate authorities here. The problem for you is that the CC has erred countless number of times, while the Scriptures have remained the same.

-Travis

We need an authority for everything Travis.

School authority told you what is and is not an accepted text book.

Government authority told you what is and isn’t the law.

Government authority told what is and isn’t a right.

Work authority told you what your responsibilities are and aren’t.

It is the same with Scriptures. The Church will tell you what is and isn’t Scripture, because the Church is God’s chosen authority for matters of the Faith. Or would you rather have the Secular world or non-christians tell you?

In that line all I need to look is at the Church, Scripture and History. That will tell me:

Jesus came to the world and chose 12 men, among those 12 was Simon (Peter). Peter knew all these guys. Peter’s last Church was Rome. After Peter came Linus, after Linus came Anacletus, after Anacletus came Clement I, and so forth until today we have Benedict XVI. You can see them here: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Jesus delegated His authority to the Apostles and the Apostles passed it on to their successors. A continued line of succession.

There is no higher authority on Earth to tell us what Scriptures are other than the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - period