Sola scripture from satan

[cascherman]

As I said the Bible supports this definition primarily from a position of silence. By this I mean, the Bible does not identify any other sources that are “incapable of error”. Therefore, I have no sound reason to accept anything else as “incapable of error”.

In order for this argument to hold water one would have to prove the Bible tells us everything necessary for any theological question we may have.

So full sufficiency is key to this argument, and I would again argue the Bible does not tell us we will need nothing else. So, If the Bible does not say we will need nothing else, then I too can argue the position of silence for my reasoning that the Bible alone is not sufficient and there is another authority.

Right?

 

[cascherman]

As well, there is support for authority beyond what Christ said.

John 14:26 “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name- he will teach you everything and remind your of all that I told you.”

Matthew 18:18 “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So, we know from the first verse, that there will be learning after Christ has left, and we also know from the second that the Apostles are given the power to bind and loose on earth which will be reflected in heaven.

I have not seen any limitation from the Bible to when the learning stops and when the binding and loosing stops.

 

[Metaron]

I am not sure I can logically prove it correct. I have come to believe that it is correct based on the unanimous agreement of Christians for 2000 years on the content of the New Testament canon. Although I can’t logically prove it, I believe the preponderence of evidence overwhelmingly support the idea that the fathers got the canon correct.

Well, there was actually a lot of disagreement in the beginning. Many considered the Gospel of Peter to be canon, along with the Shepherd of Hermas, and Clement I. Others considered Hebrews, 2nd Peter, and the Apocalypse to be blasphemous, along with St.James.

…That having been said, I have my doubts whether what we observe now is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church. Jesus did seem to put a lot of priority into all of us being one.

I will proceed to put forth a theory. Jesus prayed to the Father that Christians would be “one, even as we are One.” Later on in the Bible, it says “The prayers of a righteous man availeth much.” If Christ was all-righteous and He prayed that we all be One, wouldn’t the Church remain One? I can’t imagine God the Father telling God the Son, “No. I won’t grant your request and keep them one.” I mean, I can’t see God the Father and the Son disagreeing on how people are saved, or if baptism is for adults only! I guess this could get absurd, and I know this arguement has holes, but, I don’t know. Makes you wonder.

 

[Hellisreal]

What makes me wonder is, if the scriptures are sooo important (and they are- bear with me here)

Why didn’t Jesus himself ask for the apostles to write scriptures beyond what they already had - the Hebrew Scriptures…
Hmm…

Could it be he figured that people would use their God given brain and realize he gave a church?

Show me where Jesus said to the apostles they must pen his words? Show me in the bible!

 

[mozart-250]

It was not as unanimously agreed upon for 2000 years as you may think. Many of the last books were NOT agree upon. Just like many other doctrinal definitions, the New Testament was defined, setting the Canon in stone and leaving no room for interpretation. This sort of defining is one of the reasons people believe Purgatory was ‘invented’ in the 1500’s, the assumption ‘invented’ in 1950, and the deutorcanon being ‘added’ only after the reformation.
The belief was there long before any of these were defined, but they were not set in stone, as one would say.

I think I was careless in what I said.

What I meant to say was after the New Testament canon was adjucated, I know of no challenges to it…meaning that since that point it has been accepted. That to me is convincing evidence that those who adjucated it got it correct.

 

[paarsurrey]

Show me where Jesus said to the apostles they must pen his words? Show me in the bible!

Hi

It is nowhere written in the NTBible.

I understand from Quran/Islam/Muhammad that the scribes themselves wrote and ascribed it to GodAllahYHWH, if I have understood correctly.

Quran.
[2:80] Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ That they may take for it a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.
Unquote

Thanks

 

[Hellisreal]

Hi

It is nowhere written in the NTBible.

I understand from Quran/Islam/Muhammad that the scribes themselves wrote and ascribed it to GodAllahYHWH, if I have understood correctly.

Quran.
[2:80] Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ That they may take for it a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.
Unquote

Thanks

Woe is me, at least none of them claimed an angel told them what to write.

 

[w_stewart]

My Bible says something similar:

In other words, not just any tradition but tradition that has its source the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Take note of the phrase “word of mouth”. In other words, unwritten teachings. Where can we find these teachings handed down through the words of mouth? In the Bible?

 

[w_stewart]

If the apostles did not teach the Assumption (and I have no reason to believe they did) it is not a part of apostolic tradition.

Sir, the apostolic Fathers, the valid successors of the apostles teach that Mary was assumed body and soul in heaven. The teachings of these Fathers are part of the so-called apostolic tradition.

Umm…first of all if you define Sola Scriptura as I defined it in a previous post, it most definitely is supported by Scripture. Specifically it is supported by the silence of Scripture in that Scripture gives me absolutely no warrant to believe in any other source as incapable of error. That is more than I see in Scripture concerning the assumption of Mary where Scripture is totally silent.

Again, this boils down to the question whether it is the Bible that should be the sole rule of faith.

There is no record of any belief in the assumption of Mary until at least the 300 time frame or so.

This is not valid argument to question the validity of the Assumption.

The idea that there is no other infallible faith source is rooted in Scripture in that Scripture does not identify any other source that it incapable of being incorrect.

The Bible clearly states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This passage has been neglected by Sola Scripturists so many times.

 

[w_stewart]

Where is it supported by the apostolic fathers? The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t seem to think it was mentioned by them.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.

 

[w_stewart]

As I said the Bible supports this definition primarily from a position of silence. By this I mean, the Bible does not identify any other sources that are “incapable of error”. Therefore, I have no sound reason to accept anything else as “incapable of error”.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Just because I had not read in the Bible that the apostles died, they must have been existing on earth until these days.

Jesus said:

And on this rock, I will build the Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Further:

…the Holy Spirit will abide by the Church forever.

and

Whatever shall you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, whatever shall you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.

Paul said:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Glaring truths which the sola scripturists prefer not to pay attention to.

 

[cascherman]

Woe is me, at least none of them claimed an angel told them what to write.

be nice now … Christians claim a lot that an athiest or non-believer would say is unreasonable (though I do agree with you in the long run.)

 

[chet]

Was the deity of Christ (challenged after the Apostolic age), settled by so-called “oral tradition” or by that which was Holy Spirit inspired, written and preserved for later generations? What do any of us know about Christ other than that which was written (Old and New Testaments) and preserved? What do any of us know about salvation other than that which was preserved in Holy Writ? Neither you nor I were there when Paul spoke to the churches. But we do have the inerrant Scriptures.

We also have the body of Apostolic Teaching preserved by The Church which guides us in properly interpreting Sacred Scripture.

 

[BrMike]

I don’t want to upset anyone.
But I was looking for the real inventor of sola scripture.
Correct me if I am wrong but when satan was tempting Jesus did he not use scripture we he tempted Jesus to jump from the high ledge?

Also is it not because of sola scripture that Christians have broken into so many groups,
each group claiming sola scripture
as its athority.
satan would love to build thousands of churches, a great apostasy…was it not sola scripture
that was his greatest tool?
Other then nationality and culter which seems to be what separates
Orthodox, Sola scripture seems to be the devils greatest tool.

Sola scriptura is the least of our problems. If people are reading the Bible, they/we are far better off than if they are reading the National Enquirer, Playboy or the New York Times. It is sad that the church has splintered, and sola scriptura is an example of churches founded by men instead of by God. Still, God uses these churches for his own good purpose. Myself, being a baptized Greek Orthodox, raised a Presbyterian, fallen away from all church involvement for over two decades, then becoming a Lutheran, then an Orthodox/Charismatic Catholic, and now, finally, in RCIA and happy to be a Roman Catholic, I have a unique perspective on the pros and cons of various expressions of the Christian faith. One thing I am certain of, the Catholic Church is much stronger for having survived the Protestant Reformation, and has learned much from our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Br. Mike

 

[chet]

The Early Church Fathers while important are still capable of error. At best they are substantiating evidence. Since they are capable of error, they hardly constitute proof.

Most important though any references in this time period to the “Catholic church” are problematic because the “Catholic church” had not divided upon itself yet. You see these references are subject to rules of inheritance that occur when an entity divides upon itself.

There have always been decenters in the “Catholic church”
The freedom of Catholicism comes from the infallibility of Dogma.What may be problematic for you is to the degree the ECFs are consistent with authentic Catholic teaching right down to the present day.

 

[chet]

I’m not officially Roman Catholic yet. I’m really an Anglican going through RCIA.

Welcome Home!!! This is what Jesus wants.Just don’t let the “Cafeteria Catholics” confuse you! If you do run into questions we’re all here to help.Peace be with you.

 

[Hellisreal]

be nice now … Christians claim a lot that an athiest or non-believer would say is unreasonable (though I do agree with you in the long run.)

Yes, please go to the non catholic forum and see how catholics are responding to atheists


Follow my posts there.

 

[chet]

Umm…I think you are using the debating technique of “putting words in my mouth that I did not say”. Nice move.

I was attempting to summarize what I perceived as your belief system.Please feel free to correct me on any error I may have made in my brief analysis. Don’t forget my question. Since Jesus was a Jew why are their Christians at all?

I believe what is found in the statement of faith in my church with a couple of qualifications.

By your own admission sounds like your a “cafeteria” Wesleyan Evangelical.But isn’t that the whole driving force of Protestantism.I will say the qualifications you make seem well thought out.

 

[chet]

My Bible says something similar:

In other words, not just any tradition but tradition that has its source the apostles of Jesus Christ.

By Joab I think you’ve got it!

 

[chet]

If the apostles did not teach the Assumption (and I have no reason to believe they did) it is not a part of apostolic tradition.

Umm…first of all if you define Sola Scriptura as I defined it in a previous post, it most definitely is supported by Scripture. Specifically it is supported by the silence of Scripture in that Scripture gives me absolutely no warrant to believe in any other source as incapable of error. That is more than I see in Scripture concerning the assumption of Mary where Scripture is totally silent.

There is no record of any belief in the assumption of Mary until at least the 300 time frame or so.

The idea that there is no other infallible faith source is rooted in Scripture in that Scripture does not identify any other source that it incapable of being incorrect.

Maybe the assumption of Mary was so embedded in they’re tradition that they didn’t even contemplate it.Since just like Jesus, there was no grave to visit or bones to venerate.