Sola Scriptura . . .

[NotWorthy]

The way I always understood it:

If Jesus is instructing just to the Apostles, He is instructing them in Church matters.

If Jesus is instructing the crowds and multitudes, He is instructing them on Christian Truths.

Am I close?

 

[down_under]

Observing4Grace:
I think It is you that are missing the point. I think you are being a little short sited God prayed in his high priestly prayer that we should all be one. If we were to all be one then how come he did not leave us with a way to know what he means by what he said. How come he left us to argue among ourselves. How come there are so many “points of difficulty” that continue to divide us over and over again. Yes I would not go anywhere without that athority. Without that oneness that protestant lacks. P.S. Hee Hee Ho Ho “you mean to say I am bound by an 11 century monk” Yes I do. Because an 11 century monk came up with this idea to put in chapter breaks and now you are stuck with them. The Guttenburg bible took it one step further, but without that 11 century monk he would not have come up with the idea in the first place. without the athority of the church to tell the rest of the church that this is how the bible would be made from then on you still would not have chapter breaks in all bibles. I mean really who was the monk to do such a thing. To utterly change the very nature of sacraed scripture. who was he to do such a thing. This was huge someone had to decide if this was okay or not. If this really should be done.

 

[down_under]

Observing4Grace:
btw there are proffs for the boidly assumption of mary and purgatory, but both of these are secondary points. We can argue and bicker about chapter and verse all we like but until we come to some understanding of the very nature of sacraed scripture itself it will be of no use. The church made sacred scripture not the otherway around. I mean there are various places where they talk about pregating fires or getting to heaven as if through fire as apposed to recieving the crown from christs hand. there is chapter 11 or 12 of revelations that talks about Mary and Jesus and the devil. That is the women the dragon and the child born who sits at the right hand of God. But if we can’t get this issue right we might as well be 2 of the 30000 denominations with our scripture versus to defend our arguments because neither one of us has to believe the other because neither one of us can claim to really know for certain what it means. and so neither one of us really has to listen to anyone but ourselves.

 

[Observing4Grace]

The first paragraph is a point I have often made.

**Why I would agree too! **

But of course some Protestants do think that Sola Scriptura will produce church unity (if we can only get it right, something these people think is possible), and this is sheer insanity.

**Well people have often held to false or incorrect view of SS. A false assertion of SS only occurs if one doesn’t understand it completely. **

Furthermore, if SS does not produce church unity, then we need to figure out what does, if we are not to defy Christ’s wishes for us and the stern injunctions of St. Paul.

**St. Paul had to face disunity in a lot of places even in his time. But as I kept saying throughout the course of this board, there are those who will ignore the Holy Scriptures DELIBERATELY. Despite what it says, [thou shalt not kill] the liberal protestant churches will DELIBERATELY ignore this command. Do you get where I’ve been going? **

That’s why I think all the arguments about SS are really a distraction from the real issue–or at least from the issue that works most effectively for Catholics.

No. That’s not true. People hold to a lot of false positions and were never taught the fullness of what each principle meant. For ex, “Mother of God”. (Note I disagree with this title for the same reasons most protestants do but I do understand the Catholic Meaning of it) **

I see no a priori reason why there could not be a Church with valid claims to universality and antiquity that taught the doctrines of the Westminster Confession.

**What do you mean? **

But as a matter of fact there isn’t. There are only two churches with such claims, it seems to me, and neither of them happens to believe in Sola Scriptura!

**Which are what?

Parker **

Edwin

 

[down_under]

Observing4Grace:
We are not the ones who borrow from others. The determination of the bible did not COME from the east it was debated for nearly 300 years. The first time the bible was put together in its totallity the way we catholics have it today. (I say this not to stick it to you but because I honestly dont know how many books a protestant bible has these days, or if there is even consensus on it among the several churchs) was by the great St. Athenatious (that is not spelled right) in his 37th easter letter. after centuries of debate he presented these as books that should be used as scripture in his diocese. And really given how great a defender of the faith he was I dont know that there was a whole lot of further argument on the issue. I mean you are talking about the defender of the faith from Arianism. You are talking about a man who the entire estern church deposed from his see on 2 might have been 3 occiasions. incendently he went all the way to the pope. He went and braged publically that he went to rome to have his case heard. and when rome wrote the letter to tell that see that he should be bishop it was so and there was no argument. Thank you for mentioning such a perfect example of church athority. So in that sence yes I suspose we got the debate closed by the eastern church. by the very defender of the papal athority.

 

[MrS]

The way I always understood it:

If Jesus is instructing just to the Apostles, He is instructing them in Church matters.

If Jesus is instructing the crowds and multitudes, He is instructing them on Christian Truths.

Am I close?

I guess we could compare what is happening with when He speaks and to whom… my guess is that you would be not just close… but very very close.

 

[Observing4Grace]

I think It is you that are missing the point. I think you are being a little short sited God prayed in his high priestly prayer that we should all be one.

**The prayers weren’t intended for an “infallible” pope to guide the church if that’s where you’re getting at. **

If we were to all be one then how come he did not leave us with a way to know what he means by what he said.

**What are you saying? **

How come there are so many “points of difficulty” that continue to divide us over and over again.

**Like I keep repeating, there is points of difficulty in scriptures but as always they result not because of a lack of understanding. More specifically, it results from deliberate ignorance. **

Without the athority of the church to tell the rest of the church that this is how the bible would be made from then on you still would not have chapter breaks in all bibles.

**So should I consult the Church’s blessing to read the scriptures and does it require a license?

Parker **

 

[MrS]

Parker, you said:
**The prayers weren’t intended for an “infallible” pope to guide the church if that’s where you’re getting at. **

We don’t and never have had “an infallible pope”.

However, the Catholic Church has always had a succession of popes who are protected by the Holy Spirit with the negative-protection of infallibility.

It seems you do not have a true understanding of what infallibility is.

.

 

[Observing4Grace]

We are not the ones who borrow from others.

**Yes you do. **

The determination of the bible did not COME from the east it was debated for nearly 300 years.

**Oh so you’re saying there was the Holy Spirit there to tell you which ones belonged or the divine “infallible” interpreter that you, the apologist has determined we needed without his consent? **

The first time the bible was put together in its totallity the way we catholics have it today.
**
Coming from a Latin Translation.

Parker**

 

[down_under]

Observing4Grace:
just becasue one misrepresents them or misquotes them does not make them insufficent.

I was not talking about someone misrepresenting or misquoting. I was talking about several generations of Good bible believeing christians who love God and there fellow man who have stuided hard and worked hard with all the tools of biblical interperation to try and understand exactly what God ment who all come up with varying degrees of different answers. Who can honestly not understand why there fellow man does not see it there way. and why there are so many different versions of the same truth we share.

I am out of time for today. work must intrude. reply and I will respond tommorow.

 

[Observing4Grace]

Parker, you said:
**The prayers weren’t intended for an “infallible” pope to guide the church if that’s where you’re getting at. **

We don’t and never have had “an infallible pope”.

However, the Catholic Church has always had a succession of popes who are protected by the Holy Spirit with the negative-protection of infallibility.

**I don’t think so. There are a lot of problems I see that are major within the Catholic Church itself. From Svendsen’s viewpoint there is as much as thirteen viewpoints that should be considered. For example, “Is the Bible Full of Errors or Not”. The church hasn’t definied it. Neither has she answered if Tradition “Was Fully Put In Tradition, Fully Put In the Word, or Both”. So these crucial questions do make a large split within the Catholic Community. **

It seems you do not have a true understanding of what infallibility is.

**It seems like you need to check out the unity status of your own church.

Parker **

 

[MrS]

From Svendsen’s viewpoint there is as much as thirteen viewpoints that should be considered

Nothing like depending on some one outside the Church to give the definitive status of the Church itself… thanks Svendsen… for nothing.

 

[HailMary]

As much as we all love discussing whether Sola Sciptura is a valid Christian practice, I think alot of people miss a very important fact that I brought up in another thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134050&highlight=Nazorean

I’d like to see supporters of Sola Scriptura try at this.

And also, please, if you haven’t yet, check out the following link and see it for yourselves:
**
Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura**
by Joel Peters

 

[Philthy]

In response to my post above, I received the following PM from a non-Catholic:

Any thoughts on this, anyone?

My thought is this: If what this individual proposes is true, then SS becomes useless. It becomes the following: Scripture contains all one needs to know regarding Christianity, but we can never know just exactly what those truths are because our interpretations are fallible. And since no one can rewrite Scripture and we cant ask Scripture to explain itself (like we can with a living Magisterium), we are lost.

 

[Contarini]

**St. Paul had to face disunity in a lot of places even in his time. But as I kept saying throughout the course of this board, there are those who will ignore the Holy Scriptures DELIBERATELY. Despite what it says, [thou shalt not kill] the liberal protestant churches will DELIBERATELY ignore this command. Do you get where I’ve been going? **

Yes, but much as I loathe abortion, it only violates the command if one first establishes when human life begins. Scripture is vague on this. That is actually an argument in favor of Sacred Tradition, because it’s clear from the Didache and other sources that early Christians were crystal clear in their unwavering opposition to abortion. But one cannot in fact say that pro-choice Protestants are deliberately contradicting Scripture.

No. That’s not true. People hold to a lot of false positions and were never taught the fullness of what each principle meant. For ex, “Mother of God”. (Note I disagree with this title for the same reasons most protestants do but I do understand the Catholic Meaning of it) **

I don’t know where you are going with that at all. I don’t have any problems with the phrase “Mother of God,” BTW, though admittedly “Theotokos” or the literal translation “God-bearer” is more precise.

I see no a priori reason why there could not be a Church with valid claims to universality and antiquity that taught the doctrines of the Westminster Confession.

**What do you mean? **

What I mean is that if there had always been Presbyterians, and if Presbyterianism had as plausible claims to be a development of early Christianity as Catholicism has, then I would at least give it serious consideration. I wouldn’t say, “they believe in sola scriptura so they can’t be right.” I’m very glad that this is not the case, because I’d far sooner be Catholic or Orthodox than confessional Presbyterian!

But as a matter of fact there isn’t. There are only two churches with such claims, it seems to me, and neither of them happens to believe in Sola Scriptura!

**Which are what?
**

The Roman and Constanopolitan Communions (i.e., Catholicism and Orthodoxy). The non-Chalcedonians and perhaps even the Church of the East have some valid claims, but I don’t see them as being realistically in the same league.

Edwin

 

[Observing4Grace]

As much as we all love discussing whether Sola Sciptura is a valid Christian practice, I think alot of people miss a very important fact that I brought up in another thread.

I’d like to see supporters of Sola Scriptura try at this.

**The fact that Matthew 2:23 is not mentioned in the current OT cannon list does not make it a tradition by any means. You would have to cite a source of Jewish Tradition, namely the Talmud to prove the case. If it’s not mention in the our cannon doesn’t mean it wasn’t written by a prophet. There were other books that were written that we don’t have on our list.

Parker **

 

[Randy_Carson]

O4 got quotes!

:extrahappy:

 

[Observing4Grace]

My thought is this: If what this individual proposes is true, then SS becomes useless. It becomes the following: Scripture contains all one needs to know regarding Christianity, but we can never know just exactly what those truths are because our interpretations are fallible. And since no one can rewrite Scripture and we cant ask Scripture to explain itself (like we can with a living Magisterium), we are lost.

**What an interesting thought. However you’re making a self defeating claim. To say that “we can never know just exactly what those truths are” is false because you’re making a claim about the truth itself. But just because you have a fallible knowledge of something doesn’t mean you can’t embrace something infallible.

Parker **

 

[Observing4Grace]

Contarini:
Yes, but much as I loathe abortion, it only violates the command if one first establishes when human life begins. Scripture is vague on this.

**Is scripture a science textbook? No, it’s not. Thus you’re violating the meaning of SS. **

That is actually an argument in favor of Sacred Tradition, because it’s clear from the Didache and other sources that early Christians were crystal clear in their unwavering opposition to abortion. But one cannot in fact say that pro-choice Protestants are deliberately contradicting Scripture.

**They are because one already knows that personhood always has a beginning. **

I don’t know where you are going with that at all. I don’t have any problems with the phrase “Mother of God,” BTW, though admittedly “Theotokos” or the literal translation “God-bearer” is more precise.

Right but why not use the word meter theo to get a clearer meaning. Fact: The ECF’s were cautious of the issue.

What I mean is that if there had always been Presbyterians, and if Presbyterianism had as plausible claims to be a development of early Christianity as Catholicism has, then I would at least give it serious consideration.

**I would too but since the ECF’s don’t unanimously support any of her doctrines, * then it’s not worth listening to. *

I wouldn’t say, “they believe in sola scriptura so they can’t be right.” I’m very glad that this is not the case, because I’d far sooner be Catholic or Orthodox than confessional Presbyterian!

**Neither would I if the ECF’s didn’t side with me. Sadly they did.

Parker **

But as a matter of fact there isn’t. There are only two churches with such claims, it seems to me, and neither of them happens to believe in Sola Scriptura!

**Which are what?
**

The Roman and Constanopolitan Communions (i.e., Catholicism and Orthodoxy). The non-Chalcedonians and perhaps even the Church of the East have some valid claims, but I don’t see them as being realistically in the same league.

Edwin

**

 

[tdgesq]

**Neither would I if the ECF’s didn’t side with me. Sadly they did.

Parker **

I agree with Randy. Let’s see the quotes and citations bro. You commented on 1 Clement earlier and I asked you whether you’ve read it. You didn’t answer. What ECF’s agreed with you and let’s see the quotes. Since many of us here refer to the ECF’s on a regular basis, it really doesn’t impress us when we hear a bare conclusion from you that they’re on your side in this debate.