Sola Scriptura...

[Randy_Carson]

Poco & Kliska-

Jesus died, rose and ascended in AD 33. The first book of the NT was written about 20 years later while the last was completed about six decades later. The canon of the NT was not formalized for several centuries.

How did the early Christians practice sola scriptura in the first two decades after Pentecost?

And if ALL Christians everywhere in all times have been unable to practice sola scriptura, at what point did God establish the Bible instead of the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth He had revealed?

Is there a verse of scripture that specifies the conditions under which the authority would pass from the Church and the Bible to the Bible Alone?

Absent such divine instruction, what reason is there for us to believe that this was ever God’s plan to begin with?

 

[Kliska]

Poco & Kliska-

Jesus died, rose and ascended in AD 33. The first book of the NT was written about 20 years later while the last was completed about six decades later. The canon of the NT was not formalized for several centuries.

How did the early Christians practice sola scriptura in the first two decades after Pentecost?

If most RC’s keep defining sola scriptura they way that you insist protestants do even though we don’t, then they never practiced sola scriptura, and neither do we. However, if you’ve been keeping up with the other threads where this keeps coming up; the OT was around, the OT was utilized by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Disciples. The gospel is the message of Jesus fulfilling the OT. No one denies that the Apostles preached verbally.

And if ALL Christians everywhere in all times have been unable to practice sola scriptura, at what point did God establish the Bible instead of the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth He had revealed?

Once more; The Truth is a Person: Christ, and Him crucified and raised. It has always been and will always be the church’s job to proclaim Jesus; verbally, in writing, and in action.

Is there a verse of scripture that specifies the conditions under which the authority would pass from the Church and the Bible to the Bible Alone?

Again, you skew what sola scriptura means.

Absent such divine instruction, what reason is there for us to believe that this was ever God’s plan to begin with?

The way you and others define sola scriptura, there is no reason for us to believe that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If most RC’s keep defining sola scriptura they way that you insist protestants do even though we don’t, then they never practiced sola scriptura, and neither do we. However, if you’ve been keeping up with the other threads where this keeps coming up; the OT was around, the OT was utilized by Jesus, the Apostles, and the Disciples. The gospel is the message of Jesus fulfilling the OT. No one denies that the Apostles preached verbally.

Once more; The Truth is a Person: Christ, and Him crucified and raised. It has always been and will always be the church’s job to proclaim Jesus; verbally, in writing, and in action.

Again, you skew what sola scriptura means.

The way you and others define sola scriptura, there is no reason for us to believe that.

Kliska-

I have been at this apologetics thing for a long time, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what sola scriptura means to non-Catholics.

The problem, as I see it, is that if sola scriptura is true in principle, then it must be universally true for all Christians everywhere for all time. Otherwise, there has to be some point in history that divides into “before” sola scriptura went into effect and “after”.

But some Christians lived and died before a single verse of the NT had been written. Others died without ever reading a single verse. Consequently, the principle of the “Bible Alone” as the sole rule of faith for the believer is nonsensical for much of Church history, and for this reason, it can be rejected as a legitimate part of God’s plan. It is a merely human invention to devalue things that Luther (and others) wanted to avoid: Sacred Tradition and Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

But let me ask you this: Did any of the Apostles practice your version of what later became known as sola scriptura?

 

[pocohombre]

Poco & Kliska-

Jesus died, rose and ascended in AD 33. The first book of the NT was written about 20 years later while the last was completed about six decades later. The canon of the NT was not formalized for several centuries.

How did the early Christians practice sola scriptura in the first two decades after Pentecost?

And if ALL Christians everywhere in all times have been unable to practice sola scriptura, at what point did God establish the Bible instead of the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth He had revealed?

Is there a verse of scripture that specifies the conditions under which the authority would pass from the Church and the Bible to the Bible Alone?

Absent such divine instruction, what reason is there for us to believe that this was ever God’s plan to begin with?

Why do we have scripture at all if the church did fine for 25 years without any inspired writing, and fine for 70 years without the book of Revelations ? God thru the inspired writers tell us why. They were aware of the tradition of inspired writings of the OT and were aware of each others writings as also inspired .Some writers also tell us their writings are to set the story straight and solidfy it (before their obvious departure). They also tell us that there were variant stories out there that needed correcting, to put forth the real McCoy. As Iraneus states, the future, new “foundation and pillar of our faith”. It is only logical to go from the oral word to the written word in any endeavor. God is the original lawyer who said , “Give/get it in Writing”. The first decades did not have scripture, but they also did not have many other things(confessional,monstrance or gold communion vessels , head bishops, catechumen classes, celibacy, cathedrals, seminaries, masses without love feast, etc )
The timing and purpose and diviness of scripture is what it is. By faith we see the Wisdom.

 

[pocohombre]

Kliska-

I have been at this apologetics thing for a long time, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what sola scriptura means to non-Catholics.

The problem, as I see it, is that if sola scriptura is true in principle, then it must be universally true for all Christians everywhere for all time. Otherwise, there has to be some point in history that divides into “before” sola scriptura went into effect and “after”.

But some Christians lived and died before a single verse of the NT had been written. Others died without ever reading a single verse. Consequently, the principle of the “Bible Alone” as the sole rule of faith for the believer is nonsensical for much of Church history, and for this reason, it can be rejected as a legitimate part of God’s plan. It is a merely human invention to devalue things that Luther (and others) wanted to avoid: Sacred Tradition and Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

But let me ask you this: Did any of the Apostles practice your version of what later became known as sola scriptura?

What is nonsensical is to have sola scriptura before scriptura. Of course you can only have SS after it has been Sciptured. If SS is an invention, even a hyperbole, it is because of the invention or hyperbole of it’s anti-thesis- tradition and papal decrees and rituals. Everyone agrees things were amuck in mid centuries of Luther’s time, and indeed the CC reformed later on. Out of that context SS came about. All Luther really said was that the Pope, and councils and the church had to act in accordance with scripture, that being The Tradition to follow. Do you think Luther was ignorant of Augustine’s and Iraneus"s and Barnabus’s and other writings on the function of God’s Word ? Luther saw what the testament writers saw, a natural tendency to stray. Yes actual Christians, under bishops deacons and all else could stray. Ursurpers in the church itself could sway the church. Hence the inspired writings came forth to channel and protect the truth. This balm is for every generation to apply ,and Luther surely tried… Yes the apostles practiced that kind of SS. First from the OT, then from their own writings . The only competitor was oral, what they heard directly from the Logos during the 3 years and as led by spirit as Peter’s dream about the gentiles.They were strict to what God said, did and finally wrote. The Jerusalem council has all three of those guidelines.They finished the council with OT scripture to back their “finding”, along with what God did ( fell upon the gentiles with HS), along with what God said to Peter in dream. So unless you want to say God is still doing “new” things and saying “new” things doctrinally, we are left with His writings for doctrine and to guide practices. The other two have passed away. As always, we have the HS and teachers and presbyters and prophets,and each other, the Body, the Church, all subject to each other and to His Written Word .

 

[batman1973]

Kliska-

I have been at this apologetics thing for a long time, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what sola scriptura means to non-Catholics.

The problem, as I see it, is that if sola scriptura is true in principle, then it must be universally true for all Christians everywhere for all time. Otherwise, there has to be some point in history that divides into “before” sola scriptura went into effect and “after”.

But some Christians lived and died before a single verse of the NT had been written. Others died without ever reading a single verse. Consequently, the principle of the “Bible Alone” as the sole rule of faith for the believer is nonsensical for much of Church history, and for this reason, it can be rejected as a legitimate part of God’s plan. It is a merely human invention to devalue things that Luther (and others) wanted to avoid: Sacred Tradition and Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

But let me ask you this: Did any of the Apostles practice your version of what later became known as sola scriptura?

You say you’ve been at apologetics for quite some time, but, you are very poor at it. You keep using tired, old, circular reasoning. You clearly demonstrate that you have no clue as to as to Sola Scriptura, if you did, you wouldn’t be making the comments that you are. It’s a known fact that the time of Jesus and the Apostles, there was scripture. To quote the Master Himself:“Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and it is they which testify of Me.”(John 5:39 KJV) So, unless you are wanting to call the Son of God a liar, you make want to seriously reconsider your false notion of the scriptures not existing at the time of Christ. But further, there is the story of Phillip and the Eunuch,(Acts 8:23-40) The eunuch is reading from the Book of Isaiah. St. Paul also commends the Bereans (Acts 17:11) who studied THE SCRIPTURES to see if what St. Paul was saying was the truth. So, yes, the Bereans clearly demonstrate sola scriptura. The used to the scriptures to see of Paul was on the level. This is why SCRIPTURE over TRADITION is important. It’s clearly biblical. Like I mentioned in another thread :Read the bible. It will surprise you, and, it will bless you.

 

[PJM]

=pocohombre;11497577]Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1) carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture

here’s what you’re missing dear friend,

The “Early Fathers were Catholics” and TEACHING ONLY Catholics

Only the Popes and those Bishops IN FULL COMMUNION [agreement] with Him Speak authoritatively FOR THEE Church; [singular like God and Faith beliefs] and then ONLY on matters of Faith belief and or Moral

The Bible Is a Catholic book: OT collected by Catholics and the Entire New Testament is actually AUTHORED by Catholics

And finally we Catholics DO [perhaps alone in this] recognize the TRUE worth and value of thee bible; But understand that it alone is not what God intended. THERE WOULD BE NO CHURCH if the bible ALONE was the sole source of God’s Teaching. Yet the early Church grew even without it.

God B;ess you!
Patrick

 

[aidanbradypop]

The “Early Fathers were Catholics” and TEACHING ONLY Catholics

Friend I believe this to be an opinion. The ECFs were not “Catholic” in the way we use the word today but rather followers and believers in Christ. I have met a few fundamentalist that Christ was a Baptist. I believe that not to be true of course but I would not say that all the ECFs were “Catholic” but rather “catholic”

Only the Popes and those Bishops IN FULL COMMUNION [agreement] with Him Speak authoritatively FOR THEE Church; [singular like God and Faith beliefs] and then ONLY on matters of Faith belief and or Moral

So the Eastern Patriarchs not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome do not speak authoritavtively on matters of faith and morals?

The Bible Is a Catholic book: OT collected by Catholics and the Entire New Testament is actually AUTHORED by Catholics

I wouldn’t expect any other answer from a faithful Catholic. You know I will have to disagree that it is a Catholic book but do not disagree with the Bishops coming together to form such a book.

And finally we Catholics DO [perhaps alone in this] recognize the TRUE worth and value of thee bible; But understand that it alone is not what God intended. THERE WOULD BE NO CHURCH if the bible ALONE was the sole source of God’s Teaching. Yet the early Church grew even without it.

God B;ess you!
Patrick

Hopefully you really do not believe the bolded part. I believe, IMHO, that there would be a “church” but vastly different than what we see today in any form of Christianity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why do we have scripture at all if the church did fine for 25 years without any inspired writing, and fine for 70 years without the book of Revelations ? God thru the inspired writers tell us why. They were aware of the tradition of inspired writings of the OT and were aware of each others writings as also inspired .Some writers also tell us their writings are to set the story straight and solidfy it (before their obvious departure). They also tell us that there were variant stories out there that needed correcting, to put forth the real McCoy. As Iraneus states, the future, new “foundation and pillar of our faith”. It is only logical to go from the oral word to the written word in any endeavor. God is the original lawyer who said , “Give/get it in Writing”. The first decades did not have scripture, but they also did not have many other things(confessional,monstrance or gold communion vessels , head bishops, catechumen classes, celibacy, cathedrals, seminaries, masses without love feast, etc )
The timing and purpose and diviness of scripture is what it is. By faith we see the Wisdom.

How did Christians practice sola scriptura prior to the writing of the New Testament?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is nonsensical is to have sola scriptura before scriptura. Of course you can only have SS after it has been Sciptured. If SS is an invention, even a hyperbole, it is because of the invention or hyperbole of it’s anti-thesis- tradition and papal decrees and rituals. Everyone agrees things were amuck in mid centuries of Luther’s time, and indeed the CC reformed later on. Out of that context SS came about. All Luther really said was that the Pope, and councils and the church had to act in accordance with scripture, that being The Tradition to follow. Do you think Luther was ignorant of Augustine’s and Iraneus"s and Barnabus’s and other writings on the function of God’s Word ? Luther saw what the testament writers saw, a natural tendency to stray. Yes actual Christians, under bishops deacons and all else could stray. Ursurpers in the church itself could sway the church. Hence the inspired writings came forth to channel and protect the truth. This balm is for every generation to apply ,and Luther surely tried… Yes the apostles practiced that kind of SS. First from the OT, then from their own writings . The only competitor was oral, what they heard directly from the Logos during the 3 years and as led by spirit as Peter’s dream about the gentiles.They were strict to what God said, did and finally wrote. The Jerusalem council has all three of those guidelines.They finished the council with OT scripture to back their “finding”, along with what God did ( fell upon the gentiles with HS), along with what God said to Peter in dream. So unless you want to say God is still doing “new” things and saying “new” things doctrinally, we are left with His writings for doctrine and to guide practices. The other two have passed away. As always, we have the HS and teachers and presbyters and prophets,and each other, the Body, the Church, all subject to each other and to His Written Word .

Did any of the Apostles practice your version of what later became known as sola scriptura?

 

[aidanbradypop]

How did Christians practice sola scriptura prior to the writing of the New Testament?

The majority of the early Christians were Jews so maybe they could have used the Torah. Not sure about the gentile converts. I would say that with the gentiles you would run more into Tradition and less Scripture than with a Jewish Christian. :twocents:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You say you’ve been at apologetics for quite some time, but, you are very poor at it.

I see.

You keep using tired, old, circular reasoning. You clearly demonstrate that you have no clue as to as to Sola Scriptura, if you did, you wouldn’t be making the comments that you are.

Oh.

It’s a known fact that the time of Jesus and the Apostles, there was scripture. To quote the Master Himself:“Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and it is they which testify of Me.”(John 5:39 KJV) So, unless you are wanting to call the Son of God a liar, you make want to seriously reconsider your false notion of the scriptures not existing at the time of Christ.

I am aware of the fact that the OT existed during Jesus’ lifetime and that Peter knew of some of Paul’s writings, etc. Thank you.

However, while the OT foretold of a coming Messiah, those scripture did not identify Jesus of Nazareth as the one who would fulfill those prophecies. Further, the Jews did not expect their messiah to die on a Roman cross, did they? That had to be explained…

But further, there is the story of Phillip and the Eunuch,(Acts 8:23-40) The eunuch is reading from the Book of Isaiah.

This is further evidence that sola scriptura fails because although the Ethiopian had the OT and that they testify to Jesus as you pointed out above, the Eunuch still needed Philip to explain how those verses applied to Jesus. So, it was Scripture AND the teaching authority of Philip and not scripture alone.

St. Paul also commends the Bereans (Acts 17:11) who studied THE SCRIPTURES to see if what St. Paul was saying was the truth. So, yes, the Bereans clearly demonstrate sola scriptura. The used to the scriptures to see of Paul was on the level. This is why SCRIPTURE over TRADITION is important. It’s clearly biblical.

There are two errors here, but I’ll just address the Berean error.

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

Like I mentioned in another thread :Read the bible. It will surprise you, and, it will bless you.

I can assure you that I have been through the NT cover to cover many, many times. But I thank you for the encouragement, brother. We can never get enough scripture.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska-

I have been at this apologetics thing for a long time, and I think I have a pretty good idea of what sola scriptura means to non-Catholics.

Apparently not. What I’ve seen presented even here in the rest of this post is a straw man rhetorical fallacy. You are using an idea of SS that protestants don’t use.

Why do we have scripture at all if the church did fine for 25 years without any inspired writing, and fine for 70 years without the book of Revelations ? God thru the inspired writers tell us why. They were aware of the tradition of inspired writings of the OT and were aware of each others writings as also inspired .Some writers also tell us their writings are to set the story straight and solidfy it (before their obvious departure). They also tell us that there were variant stories out there that needed correcting, to put forth the real McCoy. As Iraneus states, the future, new “foundation and pillar of our faith”. It is only logical to go from the oral word to the written word in any endeavor. God is the original lawyer who said , “Give/get it in Writing”. The first decades did not have scripture, but they also did not have many other things(confessional,monstrance or gold communion vessels , head bishops, catechumen classes, celibacy, cathedrals, seminaries, masses without love feast, etc )
The timing and purpose and diviness of scripture is what it is. By faith we see the Wisdom.

What is nonsensical is to have sola scriptura before scriptura. Of course you can only have SS after it has been Sciptured. If SS is an invention, even a hyperbole, it is because of the invention or hyperbole of it’s anti-thesis- tradition and papal decrees and rituals. Everyone agrees things were amuck in mid centuries of Luther’s time, and indeed the CC reformed later on. Out of that context SS came about. All Luther really said was that the Pope, and councils and the church had to act in accordance with scripture, that being The Tradition to follow. Do you think Luther was ignorant of Augustine’s and Iraneus"s and Barnabus’s and other writings on the function of God’s Word ? Luther saw what the testament writers saw, a natural tendency to stray. Yes actual Christians, under bishops deacons and all else could stray. Ursurpers in the church itself could sway the church. Hence the inspired writings came forth to channel and protect the truth. This balm is for every generation to apply ,and Luther surely tried… Yes the apostles practiced that kind of SS. First from the OT, then from their own writings . The only competitor was oral, what they heard directly from the Logos during the 3 years and as led by spirit as Peter’s dream about the gentiles.They were strict to what God said, did and finally wrote. The Jerusalem council has all three of those guidelines.They finished the council with OT scripture to back their “finding”, along with what God did ( fell upon the gentiles with HS), along with what God said to Peter in dream. So unless you want to say God is still doing “new” things and saying “new” things doctrinally, we are left with His writings for doctrine and to guide practices. The other two have passed away. As always, we have the HS and teachers and presbyters and prophets,and each other, the Body, the Church, all subject to each other and to His Written Word .

You say you’ve been at apologetics for quite some time, but, you are very poor at it. You keep using tired, old, circular reasoning. You clearly demonstrate that you have no clue as to as to Sola Scriptura, if you did, you wouldn’t be making the comments that you are. It’s a known fact that the time of Jesus and the Apostles, there was scripture. To quote the Master Himself:“Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and it is they which testify of Me.”(John 5:39 KJV) So, unless you are wanting to call the Son of God a liar, you make want to seriously reconsider your false notion of the scriptures not existing at the time of Christ. But further, there is the story of Phillip and the Eunuch,(Acts 8:23-40) The eunuch is reading from the Book of Isaiah. St. Paul also commends the Bereans (Acts 17:11) who studied THE SCRIPTURES to see if what St. Paul was saying was the truth. So, yes, the Bereans clearly demonstrate sola scriptura. The used to the scriptures to see of Paul was on the level. This is why SCRIPTURE over TRADITION is important. It’s clearly biblical. Like I mentioned in another thread :Read the bible. It will surprise you, and, it will bless you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The majority of the early Christians were Jews so maybe they could have used the Torah. Not sure about the gentile converts. I would say that with the gentiles you would run more into Tradition and less Scripture than with a Jewish Christian. :twocents:

The Jews did not and do not practice sola scriptura.

 

[PJM]

=aidanbradypop;11499050]Friend I believe this to be an opinion. The ECFs were not “Catholic” in the way we use the word today but rather followers and believers in Christ. I have met a few fundamentalist that Christ was a Baptist. I believe that not to be true of course but I would not say that all the ECFs were “Catholic” but rather “catholic”

Actually and historically they WERE Catholics for the 1st THOUSAND YEARS

So the Eastern Patriarchs not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome do not speak authoritavtively on matters of faith and morals?

“Authoritatively” [a relative term] YES! BUT NOT INFALLIBLY as do The Pope and Magisterium

I wouldn’t expect any other answer from a faithful Catholic. You know I will have to disagree that it is a Catholic book but do not disagree with the Bishops coming together to form such a book

My friend you’re KIDDING yourself here!.

It IS historically provable OBJECTIVELY speaking, that today’s Catholic Church Is the {singular] is thee Only Church and Faith Founded and desired by Christ:

Mt. 16: 18-19 " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock** I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it**. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

NOTICE THE WORDS OF OUR PERFECT GOD"“MY CHURCH”" is singular

Is this an error or mistranslation? NO! God choose ONLY One people also in the OT.

Exegesis AGREE [Objective reality] that the entire Bible was FULLY authored "by the end of the First Century or very early 2nd Century.

THEE ONLY “CHURCH” in existence at that historical time is today’s CATHOLIC Church!

The Great Schism was MANY hundreds of years in the future; and Protestantism way more than ONE THOUSAND years after the bible was fully authored. So choose yo go on fooling yourself. What I share is not simply Catholic Teaching; its OBJECTIVE secular history.

Hopefully you really do not believe the bolded part. I believe, IMHO, that there would be a “church” but vastly different than what we see today in any form of Christianity

.

I DO believe it because its biblically and historically provable; In other words my friend it is FACT, not just catholic Teaching. Amen!!

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Randy_Carson]

Friend I believe this to be an opinion. The ECFs were not “Catholic” in the way we use the word today but rather followers and believers in Christ. I have met a few fundamentalist that Christ was a Baptist. I believe that not to be true of course but I would not say that all the ECFs were “Catholic” but rather “catholic”

The writings of the Early Church Fathers prove otherwise.

Ignatius of Antioch

Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

To speak of a universal church in every place is redundant; therefore, “Catholic Church” in this case is used as a proper noun.

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

Speaking of the universal church in Smyrna would not make sense; Catholic Church is being used as a proper noun.

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Universal Church throughout the world is redundant.

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

[The Church] is called Catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23, [A.D. 350]).

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is - for the others, sects of impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’ - nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.” (Cathechetical Lectures 18:26, [A.D. 350])

Augustine

**"[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" **(Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [AD 397]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[aidanbradypop]

The Jews did not and do not practice sola scriptura.

I did not imply they were followers of SS. Anways, I trust you will have a beautiful Sunday.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Actually and historically they WERE Catholics for the 1st THOUSAND YEARS

They were followers of Christ. We can agree to disagree.

“Authoritatively” [a relative term] YES! BUT NOT INFALLIBLY as do The Pope and Magisterium

I do not subscribe to to such doctrines.

My friend you’re KIDDING yourself here!.

It IS historically provable OBJECTIVELY speaking, that today’s Catholic Church Is the {singular] is thee Only Church and Faith Founded and desired by Christ:

Mt. 16: 18-19 " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock** I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it**. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

NOTICE THE WORDS OF OUR PERFECT GOD"“MY CHURCH”" is singular

Is this an error or mistranslation? NO! God choose ONLY One people also in the OT.

Exegesis AGREE [Objective reality] that the entire Bible was FULLY authored "by the end of the First Century or very early 2nd Century.

THEE ONLY “CHURCH” in existence at that historical time is today’s CATHOLIC Church!

The Great Schism was MANY hundreds of years in the future; and Protestantism way more than ONE THOUSAND years after the bible was fully authored. So choose yo go on fooling yourself. What I share is not simply Catholic Teaching; its OBJECTIVE secular history.

.

I DO believe it because its biblically and historically provable; In other words my friend it is FACT, not just catholic Teaching. Amen!!

God Bless you,
Patrick

I respect your opinions I may not agree with you 100% or even 50% but I do respect your beliefs and thank for you sharing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apparently not. What I’ve seen presented even here in the rest of this post is a straw man rhetorical fallacy. You are using an idea of SS that protestants don’t use.

Here is a definition provided by Reformed Baptist James White during his debate with Patrick Madrid, “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?”:

**Sola Scriptura Defined by James White
**
Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.
​

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

If not, please provide the one that your faith community uses.