Sola Scripture (yes, again)

[guanophore]

Yes. We know this to be the case.

So, when did the Apostles lose the gift of the HS? Did it vanish the moment the ink dried on the parchment?

We know it includes these writings. If you want to go beyond this and claim other writings are also inspired-inerrant then it will be on to bear that burden.

You have admitted that when Jesus promised the HS to guide them into all truth, it was to apply after his resurrection. Then you point out that certain books of the bible are fuflilled in this promise, namely, Acts and the epistles. However, some of these were written by people who were not given the promise of infallibility.

You can claim this all you want but there are facts that show othewise. It is true God does not err but it is not true that fallible men cannot err.

Since God is Head of the Church, if you say the Church errs, then you are saying God errs.

To espouse means to marry or give in marriage: to marry somebody or give somebody in marriage. If you are meaning to say that the HS was given in marriage to Mary then you are in great error.

No, I am saying that Mary gave herself to the HS. She allowed the HS to overshadow her, and impregnate her with the Son of God.

Who in the second century thought such a thing?

Everyone who heard the Apostolic Teaching, or read the gospels, especially Luke.

There is no way to sustain this statement with any biblical exegesis.

Actually, there is. The bulk of it is in the language Jesus used. He addressed his mother as “woman”, as God addressed Eve at the beginning of creation. This is a title by which Jesus reinforces that she represents all women. Also, the gospel writer does not name himself, but describes himself as the “beloved disciple” to communicate that every beloved disciple can also stand with Mary at the foot of the cross. Why is it so easy for protestants to stand in the place of John to be covered by His blood, but cannot stand with John to take in His mother?

The marian doctrines were not the focus of the reformers as far as i can tell. If this is true then its understandable we would not see much on this by them.

That is exaclty the point. We see a lot from them, all of it quite Catholic. They had no problem with the Marian doctrines.

If you want to claim that you know what was taught then do so. Where is your evidence that you know what he taught there for 2 years?

We have so much evidence of apostolic teaching in Sacred Tradition we cannot fit it into the forum! Anyway, that would be far afield (even more than we already are) since this is about Sola Scriptura. My point is that one reason the Catholic Church does not espouse SS is that we know there was much more to the Apostolic Teaching than what we find in the NT

True. It is the Scriptures alone that are inspired-inerrant. If you do not have a sure foundation for your doctrines-practices in the Scriptures then you basing yourself on something far less sure. Either the traditions or speculations of men.

I know this is how you see it, ja4, and I accept that you are blind to it. May your eyes be opened! Catholic teachings comes from Jesus, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. He cannot be confined to the pages of a book any more than He can be confined to the grave.

The problem is that the Didache is not scripture. Even though it may attest i.e. confirm something they taught that does not mean its inspired-inerrant.
Do you know who wrote the Didache and when?

This is a good example of what was pointed out to you earlier. First you complain that you cant’ find something in scripture, and ask if there is any commentary or early fathers. Then, when we produce other historical documents, you say “well, it is not scripture”. See how circular this is? It bespeaks that your mind is not really open to learn the truth.

There is much in the Didache that is in scripture, and it is an excellent historical document that does attest to the practices of Christians at the end of the first century. It sheds great light on how the disciples understood the Apostolic Teaching, and applied it.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3339824]

Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that the Didache is not scripture. Even though it may attest i.e. confirm something they taught that does not mean its inspired-inerrant.
Do you know who wrote the Didache and when?

guanophore
This is a good example of what was pointed out to you earlier. First you complain that you cant’ find something in scripture, and ask if there is any commentary or early fathers. Then, when we produce other historical documents, you say “well, it is not scripture”. See how circular this is? It bespeaks that your mind is not really open to learn the truth.

What can i say??? I suspect you may be the type of person who tries to read between the lines instead of taking me at face value. So be it. There is a reason why i asked who wrote the Didache and when since it would shed light on what the early church believed after the apostles died.

There is much in the Didache that is in scripture, and it is an excellent historical document that does attest to the practices of Christians at the end of the first century. It sheds great light on how the disciples understood the Apostolic Teaching, and applied it.

Someday i will need to read it. Thanks for the info.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3339824]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You can claim this all you want but there are facts that show othewise. It is true God does not err but it is not true that fallible men cannot err.

guanophore
Since God is Head of the Church, if you say the Church errs, then you are saying God errs.

Please think clearly the ramifications of your claim here. I could easily demonstrate all kinds of bad things in your history that if what you say is true would make Jesus also evil. I seriously doubt you would want this conclusion to be drawn.

 

[Pier]

Please think clearly the ramifications of your claim here. I could easily demonstrate all kinds of bad things in your history that if what you say is true would make Jesus also evil. I seriously doubt you would want this conclusion to be drawn.

The men of the Church are fallible - God, the head of the Church, is infallible.

The Holy Spirit, who inspired the writers of the Bible, and the Church to put it together and complete it, authorized them to do so. When a protestant listens to a pastor, is he teaching what he thinks Scripture means, or what it actually means? And when some disagree, can another church be started? Or do you accept it as the true meaning of what God meant, and adhere to it whether you agree or not?

When I don’t understand something, I ask a priest, and he’ll explain what is meant, or what needs to be done - he doesn’t give me* his own opinion*, but what the Church teaches, and I’m confident that it is authorized directly from God… whether it’s what I wanted to hear, or not.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

QUOTE=justasking4;3338904]What a powerful argument you give for your beliefs here.

At least guanophore works on counter arguments for the most part rather than rely rethoric as you seem to do here…

Sticking to your pattern again, justasking4?

Forget the emoticons, that’s the silliness of sola scriptura.

Read what I wrote: you go outside of scripture to prove your scripture’s interpretation. That is the modus operandi of those who claim ‘sola scriptura’ is THE Biblical method of exegesis.

To not do so, would be to follow the Magisterium (it’s summarized in the CCC) and that would CATHOLIC

That’s ***above ***the goofy emoticons.

Robert

 

[justasking4]

Rbt Southwell;3341837]

Sticking to your pattern again, justasking4?

Forget the emoticons, that’s the silliness of sola scriptura.

:dancing: :bowdown2:

Read what I wrote: you go outside of scripture to prove your scripture’s interpretation. That is the modus operandi of those who claim ‘sola scriptura’ is THE Biblical method of exegesis.

Not sure i follow you. How do i “go outside of scripture to prove your scripture’s interpretation”?

To not do so, would be to follow the Magisterium (it’s summarized in the CCC) and that would CATHOLIC

Not necessarily. If i want to know what a roman catholic interpretation of what a passage means i usually go to a catholic commentary or something like that. The CCC is not really a good place to go to to understand what the specific meaning of a text of scripture means.

That’s ***above ***the goofy emoticons.

Robert

 

[guanophore]

What can i say??? I suspect you may be the type of person who tries to read between the lines instead of taking me at face value. So be it.

I learned that by reading a lot of your posts, and following your line of thinking, attitude, and tactics over the course of the last year. Once it became clear to me that you had a private agenda to promote here, I started reading the messages from a different perspective.

There is a reason why i asked who wrote the Didache and when since it would shed light on what the early church believed after the apostles died.

I think you are right, it does shed light on what the early church believed. But it was probably written before even the last Apostle died, or in the same year. That is why we think it reflects Apostolic teaching. It was not included in the canon because it is more of a rubric, a manual for pastors about how to teach converts and administer the sacraments.

Someday i will need to read it. Thanks for the info.

Please be careful if you do, it is VERY Catholic!

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Please think clearly the ramifications of your claim here. I could easily demonstrate all kinds of bad things in your history that if what you say is true would make Jesus also evil. I seriously doubt you would want this conclusion to be drawn.

No, not any more than all the other erroneous conclusions you have drawn, ja4. You have not been able to separate the Holy Church, which is infallible because Jesus is her Head, from the fallible persons who are members of the Body. I don’t know what it will take to make you understand that there really is a pure bride to which all these fallible souls are joined. Our human errors are not able to sully the holiness of God.

 

[guanophore]

If i want to know what a roman catholic interpretation of what a passage means i usually go to a catholic commentary or something like that. The CCC is not really a good place to go to to understand what the specific meaning of a text of scripture means.

You will be looking for a long time, then, because the commentaries are not responsible for the Apostolic Teaching as the Magesterium is. The reason the CCC is a good place to go is because scripture was never meant to be taken peicemeal as it is done by fundamentalists today. The Teaching and the Scripture are whole and entire. Furthermore, Catholic teaching is the same whether it is in the Roman Rite, or one of the other 22 Rites.

 

[Fisher]

Heb1:1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the** prophets**,
1: 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his** Son**, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me” -John 10:27.

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE.

The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He was speaking of God’s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences. God’s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord’s people in the Church.

THE TRUTH AND THE SCRIPTURE

The Lord Jesus Christ, in His great high priestly prayer, declared clearly the truth of God’s Word. He said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, “thy law is truth.” The Lord Himself therefore identified truth with the written Word. There is no source other than to Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer’s standard of truth.

Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

(Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 “[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.” Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:17

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If i want to know what a roman catholic interpretation of what a passage means i usually go to a catholic commentary or something like that. The CCC is not really a good place to go to to understand what the specific meaning of a text of scripture means.

guanophore
You will be looking for a long time, then, because the commentaries are not responsible for the Apostolic Teaching as the Magesterium is. The reason the CCC is a good place to go is because scripture was never meant to be taken peicemeal as it is done by fundamentalists today. The Teaching and the Scripture are whole and entire. Furthermore, Catholic teaching is the same whether it is in the Roman Rite, or one of the other 22 Rites.

What do you do when you want to know what a specific passage of Scripture means? For example how would you find out what I John 5:16 means?

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when you want to know what a specific passage of Scripture means? For example how would you find out what I John 5:16 means?

It is not appropriate to separate particular verses out from the rest. Scripture is to be taken entire, as a whole. Othewise misunderstandings and confusion arises. When all the scriptures are understood togehter as a whole, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the Church teachings and the Scriptures. We understand the meaning of what is written by reading it in the light of the Apostolic teaching which has come down to us from Jesus through the Apostles. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and they passed this on to faithful men who would be able to teach others also. God has watched over His word to perform it.

 

[CentralFLJames]

It is not appropriate to separate particular verses out from the rest. Scripture is to be taken entire, as a whole. Othewise misunderstandings and confusion arises. When all the scriptures are understood togehter as a whole, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the Church teachings and the Scriptures. We understand the meaning of what is written by reading it in the light of the Apostolic teaching which has come down to us from Jesus through the Apostles. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and they passed this on to faithful men who would be able to teach others also. God has watched over His word to perform it.

Well said Guanophore.

Chapter and verse divisions are not found in our oldest manuscripts of the Bible, and there is evidence that the early Hebrew writers did not even separate the words of the text, following a Hebrew tradition that Moses wrote the Law as one continuous word. The division into chapters was a gradual process that began in the Middle Ages. The divisions now used were introduced by Stephen Langton (d. 1228), later archbishop of Canterbury, and are found in the Biblia Parisiensis, used at the University of Paris as early as the 13th century. (English Versions of the Bible, Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P.)

The division of Bible chapters into numbered smaller sections was introduced to facilitate scholarly reference to the individual passages. In 1528, Santes Pagnino, a Dominican, published a Bible where each chapter was divided into verses usually consisting of single sentences.

I think we had a very unfortunate confluence of events with the advent of the printing press and the scholarly break out of the scripture verses that led to the error we have today - “private interpretation”. The Bible was written and composed by and for the Church as a common text to teach from. It was never intended to be put into the public domain as a self-study “do it yourself” cookbook for salvation. This has led to the legion of private interpretations by essentially “amateurs” who mis-equate the ability to “read and write” with wisdom and knowledge. Wisdom and knowledge can not come from microscopic level views of scripture around small verse quantization formulas that we see Protestants do. This is how we get the legion of salvation formulas and buzz phrases that protestants come up with (“one must believe”, “by faith alone”, “by scripture alone”, “one must be reborn”, “by grace alone”, “You must know Jesus as your personal lord and savior” - ad-nauseum).

One must view scripture holistically as “one continuous indivisible word”. Truth can not be divided against itself anymore so than God can divide his 3 Divine Persons against Himself. But more importantly one must not only view scripture one must live scripture to attach Sacred Tradition (which includes Sacred Teaching) to it.

James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3349050]Well said Guanophore.

Chapter and verse divisions are not found in our oldest manuscripts of the Bible, and there is evidence that the early Hebrew writers did not even separate the words of the text, following a Hebrew tradition that Moses wrote the Law as one continuous word.

Didn’t they have separate books though? Didn’t Moses write 5 books and not one “big” book?

The division into chapters was a gradual process that began in the Middle Ages. The divisions now used were introduced by Stephen Langton (d. 1228), later archbishop of Canterbury, and are found in the Biblia Parisiensis, used at the University of Paris as early as the 13th century. (English Versions of the Bible, Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P.)

The division of Bible chapters into numbered smaller sections was introduced to facilitate scholarly reference to the individual passages. In 1528, Santes Pagnino, a Dominican, published a Bible where each chapter was divided into verses usually consisting of single sentences.

Don’t catholic Bibles follow this though?

I think we had a very unfortunate confluence of events with the advent of the printing press and the scholarly break out of the scripture verses that led to the error we have today - “private interpretation”. The Bible was written and composed by and for the Church as a common text to teach from. It was never intended to be put into the public domain as a self-study “do it yourself” cookbook for salvation.

On your last comment—It was never intended to be put into the public domain as a self-study “do it yourself” cookbook for salvation" --does this mean a Christian was never meant to have his-own copy of the Scriptures?

Secondly, who said that the Scriptures were never intended to be put into the public domain as a self-study? Does the catholic church teach this?

This has led to the legion of private interpretations by essentially “amateurs” who mis-equate the ability to “read and write” with wisdom and knowledge.

True for some.

Wisdom and knowledge can not come from microscopic level views of scripture around small verse quantization formulas that we see Protestants do.

Are you saying that a person cannot gain knowledge from specific verses of the Bible?

This is how we get the legion of salvation formulas and buzz phrases that protestants come up with (“one must believe”, “by faith alone”, “by scripture alone”, “one must be reborn”, “by grace alone”, “You must know Jesus as your personal lord and savior” - ad-nauseum).

Lets take the phrase “by grace alone”. Is this not true that we cannot do anything to merit salvation?

One must view scripture holistically as “one continuous indivisible word”. Truth can not be divided against itself anymore so than God can divide his 3 Divine Persons against Himself. But more importantly one must not only view scripture one must live scripture to attach Sacred Tradition (which includes Sacred Teaching) to it.

So how do you do this? Do you know all that your church teaches on a particular doctrine?

James

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3348161]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What do you do when you want to know what a specific passage of Scripture means? For example how would you find out what I John 5:16 means?

guanophore
It is not appropriate to separate particular verses out from the rest. Scripture is to be taken entire, as a whole. Othewise misunderstandings and confusion arises.

When all the scriptures are understood togehter as a whole, it is clear that there is no contradiction between the Church teachings and the Scriptures.

This is not true. There are a number of catholic doctrines that fail this test. Apostolic succession, indulgences and purgatory come to mind.

We understand the meaning of what is written by reading it in the light of the Apostolic teaching which has come down to us from Jesus through the Apostles. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and they passed this on to faithful men who would be able to teach others also. God has watched over His word to perform it.

It is true that apostles passed their teachings on to faithful men. Paul to Timothy would be a case in point. The problem is that not all that has been passed down is from the apostles.