sola scriptura

[PRmerger]

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

Do you see, Travis, how you cannot dismiss the authority of the Catholic Church without dismissing the written paradosis (which is, of course, the Scriptures).

Either you say, “The CC can’t tell you what the Apostles taught because it claims this authority for itself, which is circular”…and that means you must dismiss the Scriptures.

OR

You say, “The CC claims its authority from the Apostles, who gave us the kerygma, and through the authority of the CC I know what is the Bible.”

 

[Traverse]

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

I already commented on this. Do you think that Moses was not moved by the Holy Spirit to record the words for scripture or do you think he merely copied down oral tradition and was not inspired at all? My answer for how the account of history got from Adam to Moses is that Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the bible itself already says. He was not writing his own thoughts, he was writing while inspired.

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.

I don’t dispute any of this. You make the mistake of my saying that oral tradition is no longer relevant means that His word has passed away. All I said was that oral tradition, which was of importance and guided by the Holy Spirit, was eventually recorded in sacred scripture. Why record scripture if it serves no purpose? Why not just have sacred tradition if you believe that the Holy Spirit keeps the church from error? What is the purpose of the written word in your eyes?

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?

I didn’t say that. In fact I believe that one of the ways the Holy Spirit did maintain the Word of God in the believers was by making sure it was written down as an everlasting record.

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.

This is actually quite inaccurate. The trinity is described in scripture, it just doesn’t have the name “trinity.” Likewise, scripture reveals for us that the saints met on Sundays. That is why we meet on Sundays. Sacred Tradition doesn’t reveal this, it was already revealed. In fact, I would raise a question as to why the catholic church sees fit to celebrate mass on every day of the week when Sacred Tradition/scripture only sets aside the authority to celebrate on Sundays.

 

[CopticChristian]

I already commented on this. Do you think that Moses was not moved by the Holy Spirit to record the words for scripture or do you think he merely copied down oral tradition and was not inspired at all? My answer for how the account of history got from Adam to Moses is that Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the bible itself already says. He was not writing his own thoughts, he was writing while inspired.

I don’t dispute any of this. You make the mistake of my saying that oral tradition is no longer relevant means that His word has passed away. All I said was that oral tradition, which was of importance and guided by the Holy Spirit, was eventually recorded in sacred scripture. Why record scripture if it serves no purpose? Why not just have sacred tradition if you believe that the Holy Spirit keeps the church from error? What is the purpose of the written word in your eyes?

I didn’t say that. In fact I believe that one of the ways the Holy Spirit did maintain the Word of God in the believers was by making sure it was written down as an everlasting record.

**This is actually quite inaccurate. The trinity is described in scripture, it just doesn’t have the name “trinity.” Likewise, scripture reveals for us that the saints met on Sundays. That is why we meet on Sundays. ** Sacred Tradition doesn’t reveal this, it was already revealed. In fact, I would raise a question as to why the catholic church sees fit to celebrate mass on every day of the week when Sacred Tradition/scripture only sets aside the authority to celebrate on Sundays.

Trent,

It is so clear that we see the likes of the Jehovah Witness, 7th day adventists, Oneness Pentacostals, Mormons and who knows who else see it clear as a bell and without doubt know, understand and teach the Trinity…since it is accurately described in a Bible translation that cannot be proved is the Word of God…for if any of these groups believed the translation was without doubt the Word of God, then they would not exist.

 

[Traverse]

Who is Trent?

Anyway, you are stating that because some people ignore passages of scripture that scripture is therefore not a valid teaching tool?

 

[JonNC]

Who is Trent?

Anyway, you are stating that because some people ignore passages of scripture that scripture is therefore not a valid teaching tool?

The Council of Trent, which happened in the wake of the Reformation in the mid-1500’s.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Who is Trent?

Anyway, you are stating that because some people ignore passages of scripture that scripture is therefore not a valid teaching tool?

Trent, Travis and Traverse -

We know scripture is a valid teaching tool…it’s profitable to do so.

2 TImothy
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

But not only for the above…the bible was canonized by the Catholic Church for use in readings at Mass.

 

[CopticChristian]

Who is Trent?

Anyway, you are stating that because some people ignore passages of scripture that scripture is therefore not a valid teaching tool?

Traverse,

You continue to ignore the fact that what you have is a translation and you have yet to prove how that translation is valid as Scripture=Word of God…

so,

I am stating that people ignore the passages of your translation of a book you claim to be Scripture without the ability to prove that it is Scripture and therefore its validity as a teaching tool is in question since it cannot be proved to be Scripture.

Offer proof that your translation is without doubt Scripture=Word of God and we have another discussion.

Do not use the book to prove this because you cannot use the translation to prove that the translation is Scripture=Word of God. If your mind wanders to the Book of Timothy…then forget it because your translation and my Word of God declared to be Scripture by the Church knows that this only validates the Old Testament.

 

[Traverse]

I haven’t ignored anything. I don’t recall the question being posed to me specifically.

Although the answer doesn’t really enter into this conversation. I don’t deny that tradition is why we have the bible, but I submit that the presence of one important tradition doesn’t mean that there are more to follow. The relevant of how we know what the bible is doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not we, now that we do have the bible, look for instruction outside of it.

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t ignored anything. I don’t recall the question being posed to me specifically.

Although the answer doesn’t really enter into this conversation. I don’t deny that tradition is why we have the bible, but I submit that the presence of one important tradition doesn’t mean that there are more to follow. The relevant of how we know what the bible is doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not we, now that we do have the bible, look for instruction outside of it.

Well, Traverse, what it means then is that you cannot be Sola Scriptura, because some of what you believe comes NOT from the Bible, but from Tradition.

And it also means that you believe that the Church was given the charism of infallibility.

And it also means that you give your submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

So to say that you “don’t deny tradition” is HUGE, Traverse. HUGE.

 

[Porknpie]

I haven’t ignored anything. I don’t recall the question being posed to me specifically.

Although the answer doesn’t really enter into this conversation. I don’t deny that tradition is why we have the bible, but I submit that the presence of one important tradition doesn’t mean that there are more to follow. The relevant of how we know what the bible is doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not we, now that we do have the bible, look for instruction outside of it.

Traverse,

We can’t even agree on scripture…let alone Tradition.

Lets stay with scripture for moment. Please provide the book, chapter and verse on how you arrive at your belief above in bold. It can’t be “I submit”.

The bible says, says…2 Thessalonians 2 says…

15 So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.*

 

[KathleenGee]

Tradition with the big ‘T’ means how everything was laid out and put into practice from the teachings of Christ and His apostles.

Small traditions are those that are more exterior and vary from one church (diocese, jurisdiction) to another.

So, my usual, by 100 AD, our tradition of worship was now the Memorial, the liturgy of the Mass, we had practically all books of the Bible through the Septuagint tradition that Peter and Paul themselves followed, we had now the ecclesial structure of the bishopry, and our universal profession of faith in the Apostles Creed.

These are the 4 Squares of the Church: the Mass as worship ordained by Christ Himself, the Septuagint tradition of Scripture that looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, a man of sufferings, the messiah marginalized and rejected by many of His own people, the episcopal model of one head of the local church – not a conciliar model that decisions are reduced to relativism, and the profession of the Incarnation professed in the Apostles Creed…the beginning of theology.

 

[Porknpie]

Trent, Travis and Traverse -

We know scripture is a valid teaching tool…it’s profitable to do so.

2 TImothy
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

But not only for the above…the bible was canonized by the Catholic Church for use in readings at Mass.

Traverse,

Here’s a quote from the early Church, speaking to scripture being used at Mass…

It’s important to note that…Scripture = 73 books…people were attended Church for the readings and for the celebration of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

“Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis…The Revelation of John…for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church.” Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419).

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

 

[Traverse]

Traverse,

We can’t even agree on scripture…let alone Tradition.

Lets stay with scripture for moment. Please provide the book, chapter and verse on how you arrive at your belief above in bold. It can’t be “I submit”.

The bible says, says…2 Thessalonians 2 says…

15 So then, brothers and sisters,* stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.*

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

This is something I’ve brought up before that I haven’t seen anyone acknowledge. There was a time in the early church where things were different than they are now. It is an easy inference to see that in the early church we knew what scripture was because of our gifts of the spirit. Today we only have the remnant, scripture.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

 

[berrytc44]

Traverse,

Here’s a quote from the early Church, speaking to scripture being used at Mass…

It’s important to note that…Scripture = 73 books…people were attended Church for the readings and for the celebration of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

“Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis…The Revelation of John…for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in the church.” Council of Carthage, African Code, Canon 24 (A.D. 419).

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Wait…how did the any believing Christian know what was Scripture before this? Also, how did the Jews before the CC know that Tobias, Maccabees, and Esdras was Scripture? Jesus held the Jews to Scripture but if the CC didn’t define what it was then Jesus must have been nuts. Right?

-Travis

 

[Porknpie]

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

Traverse. Wonderful, …can now understand why you are believing what you are believing. This scripture is speaking to the “way of love” and that with the coming of Christ & Heaven, Love will remain but other things will be done away. Lines 11 -13 summarize the teaching. You are isolating a text from the total meaning of the paragraph.

13 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

Here is the Haydock commentary below.

Ver. 8. Prophecies and tongues last no longer than this life. — Knowledge shall be destroyed, that is, that imperfect knowledge we have in this world. For now we know only in part, we only see, as it were, through a glass, and imperfectly. — Faith, which is of things that appear not, and hope, which is of things that we enjoy not, will cease in heaven, but charity, the greater, or greatest even of these three, will remain, and be increased in heaven. (Witham)

This is something I’ve brought up before that I haven’t seen anyone acknowledge.

acknowledge or respond to?

There was a time in the early church where things were different than they are now.

True…before 400 AD there was no bible.

It is an easy inference to see that in the early church we knew what scripture was because of our gifts of the spirit. Today we only have the remnant, scripture.

No … the Spirit has never left. Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit… he did … and will be with us until the end of time.

[SIGN]"**Until **the End Time" Does not mean the Holy Spirit will leave us in Heaven. Understand the parallel to the Virgin Mary. [/SIGN]

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

Traverse, what are the things that he is writing? What is the Lord’s commandment that is being referred to…? What do you understand a prophet or spiritual to be…?

 

[PRmerger]

Wait…how did the any believing Christian know what was Scripture before this? Also, how did the Jews before the CC know that Tobias, Maccabees, and Esdras was Scripture? Jesus held the Jews to Scripture but if the CC didn’t define what it was then Jesus must have been nuts. Right?

-Travis

Through Tradition, berry!

 

[CopticChristian]

Wait…how did the any believing Christian know what was Scripture before this? Also, how did the Jews before the CC know that Tobias, Maccabees, and Esdras was Scripture? Jesus held the Jews to Scripture but if the CC didn’t define what it was then Jesus must have been nuts. Right?

-Travis

Berry,

Actually, we are all nuts…

Here is what you are saying…

How did any believing, baptized Christian know what was Scripture before what?

How did the Jews know what Scripture was or when was the OT put together and by whom and how did the Greeks get the OT?

Jesus held the Jews to Scripture and Tradition…not Scripture alone…where does Scripture say Marriage is permanent…in the beginning it was not so…somehow someone, somewhere interpreted this as Divorce and Ok, do it, but the Law of Moses allowed Divorce because if not they would kill their wives…stiff necked, stubborn people…

and for a while there was no written word…as seen in Kings…in other words Jews survived and lived…what they knew without the written word…

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Until the reign of King Josias, and the epoch-making discovery of “the book of the law” in the Temple (621 B.C.), say the critical exegetes, there was in Israel no written code of laws or other work, universally acknowledged as of supreme and Divine authority. This “book of the law” was practically identical with Deuteronomy, and its recognition or canonization consisted in the solemn pact entered into by Josias and the people of Juda, described in 2 Kings 23. That a written sacred Torah was previously unknown among the Israelites, is demonstrated by the negative evidence of the earlier prophets, by the absence of any such factor from the religious reform undertaken by Ezechias (Hezekiah), while it was the mainspring of that carried out by Josias, and lastly by the plain surprise and consternation of the latter ruler at the finding of such a work.

Again the Catholic Church was yet to be built as Jesus Promised to build a Church…

Do you know of any man made insitutuion on earth that within 500 years does not disseminate into chaos?

For 2000 years the Church is split into Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic Latin/East and the issues have nothing to do what is in the Bible, whether to Baptize infants, organiztion of the Church in terms of Bishops, priests, Deacons…Eucharist, etc…when you compare and contrast the divisions here…and ask yourself…is this a work of man or of God…and then…

see

Anglican becomes Methodist becomes Holiness becomes AOG, Pentacostal…and a constant split and attempt to reinvent the wheel…are you really serious in believing that this is a work of God?

 

[CopticChristian]

Wait…how did the any believing Christian know what was Scripture before this? Also, how did the Jews before the CC know that Tobias, Maccabees, and Esdras was Scripture? Jesus held the Jews to Scripture but if the CC didn’t define what it was then Jesus must have been nuts. Right?

-Travis

Travis,

If you want nuts…I will show you nuts…from the Westminster Confession of Faith…

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

The Authority of Scripture.

No man can declare the Scripture to be Authoritative.
No Church can declare the Scripture to be Authoritative.
Only God can declare Scripture to be Authoratative because God is the author…

so far so good…

Now, when this Confession was written, all you and they had was a translation…not original Scripture…

Now, you and every other Protestant has a translation…and note, based on the Westminster confession of Faith…

You… a man cannot declare that Scripture is authoratative…so according to this document you are wasting your time here trying to say this…

No Church, and we all know that there is no Protestant Church…this Church that does not exist cannot say the Scriptures are authoratative…

Now, we wait…for only God can declare that the Scriptures are authoratative…wanna give your attempts to prove that Scripture is authortative a rest???

This is nuts.

 

[Bella92]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

The way I’m feeling right now, I think that’s a lovely idea. Me and my bible and nothing else. Sounds good to me.

 

[PRmerger]

The way I’m feeling right now, I think that’s a lovely idea. Me and my bible and nothing else. Sounds good to me.

Except, Bella, it’s not an honest way to be.

You cannot have a Bible without the Catholic Church.