What is Sola Biblica? A more accurate way to say what I said is…the Bible as we have it today did not exist for the first 400 years of Christianity. You put words in my mouth. Strawman.
The Old Testament, yes. Not the New Testament. Thus, the Bible as we have it today did not exist.
Yes, the Old Testament.
That’s not my argument.
How did they know those passages were inspired? How do *you *know they are inspired?
Here is what you posted:
If there was such a thing as Sola Biblica, you might have a point (however moot in 2010), but there’s no such thing and this thread is about Sola SCRIPTURA. Read the Scriptures I referenced. See if Scripture was embraced before any denomination did anything about this, see if such was used normatively (known as Sola Scriptura).
OBVIOUSLY, none needed The Catholic Church to tell 'em. It didn’t hold a meeting about this until some 400 years LATER. BTW, the Israelites didn’t need The Catholic Church to tell them that the Ten Commandments were Scriptures, either - and that was 1,800 years before that meeting. Scriptures existed, were embraced as such and were used normatively (“Sola Scriptura”) centuries before that meeting you have in mind… Your point (moot today anyway) is baseless.Josiah:
.
How did they know those passages were inspired? How do *you *know they are inspired?
My point was to show that you accept the Catholic Church’s Authority if you believe those scripture passages you quoted are inspired.
Who decided what was added to scripture to make the size of the corpus increase?
Jesus founded his Church (the Catholic Church) while on the Cross. The “coming out” party of the Church was on Pentecost. You bring up infallibility. That is probably suited for another thread.
Are you telling me that we are defending the use of something that we don’t know what it is?
Sola scriptura, much more than the doctrine of Tradition, Magisterium, and Scripture as sources of faith which cannot contradict with each other (which is the teaching of the Catholic Church) leads to less accountability.
So you think they (the early Christians) just automatically knew that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inspired and that the Gospels of Bartholomew, Barnabas, Peter and Mary were not inspired?
The early Christians embraced sola scripture? I am interested in which early Church fathers embraced this heresy. Could you tell me?
During Old Testament times, God sent judges, prophets, and priests to keep his people doctrinally sound. Revelation was ongoing at that point. But with the coming of Christ, God completed public revelation and so established an infallible authority (his Church) to guard and interpret the fullness of that revelation. That is one reason why the Old Testament Jews did not have an infallible authority.
This seems a bit pointless, but if you would be a correct, phase it as follows: The Church is a divinely constituted body to keep the deposit of faith holding primacy and authority of matters related to all things, especially those related to matters of doctrine, morals and ethics.
Here’s what I don’t understand. A Protestant says well the 7 Sacraments were not officially defined until such and such a counsel and is told, nah that counsel just affirmed what we always believed. Then a Protestant says that the books of the Bible as inspired was declared at a counsel but just affirmed what was always believed and Catholics say no it was officially declared at the counsel and that’s all that matters.
Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with salvation, as you know. Sola Scriptura (aka the Rule of Scripture) is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the rule/canon in the norming of doctrines.
Then all of the following statements and practices by Jesus, James, Paul and Peter are useless and you rebuke them for using the title “Scripture” and using thus normatively (“Sola Scriptura”):
We all know that The Catholic Church has a UNIQUE set of Scriptures - no other on the planet does (or ever has) agreed with The Catholic Church on this. Frankly, that’s a problem for you to take up with The Catholic Church - why no other Christian body has ever agreed with it on this point. But it’s moot to the discussion here. Sola Scriptura is the embrace of Scripture as the rule/canon. Now, it’s true, the corpus of Scripture the Eastern Orthodox embraces is different than that which The Catholic Church does, but then EVERY OTHER is going to be different than what The Catholic Church embraces because it’s embrace is unique to exclusively itself. But that doesn’t change the praxis, does it? In the Rule of Law, the praxis is the the law is normative. Now, it doesn’t matter that the law in New Jersey is not identical to the law in California - the praxis of The Rule of Law is the same. You have a moot point in another sense, too. Yes - under this praxis, The Catholic Church would be “justified” in using 2 Macc (and it does) - and as a Protestant, I permit that. As a Lutheran, I cannot (because Lutheranism NEITHER embraces or rejects the book). We’re off topic (the praxis doesn’t declare what is or is not Scripture - a praxis doesn’t declare or teach ANYTHING), but to briefly address that (Mods - cut me some slack here!), it’s just moot. Lutherans actually quote the CATHOLIC unique books more than Catholics do; Luther preached from them, taught them, included them in his translation, they are referenced in the Lutheran Confessions (just not declared to be Scriptures there). It makes no difference. In all my years in Catholicism, I heard them read RARELY in the lectionary - but that was it. They are simply moot to anyone. The ONLY point of doctrine ever raised from them has to do with purgatory, but the verse there offers nothing to support the unique Catholic doctrine (as all the Orthodox groups also view - and yet they DO accept that book as Scripture) - so, it’s just moot. Go ahead, The Catholic Church can use its totally unique set of books, the Eastern Orthodox can use their unique set of books, the Oriental Orthodox can use their various unique sets of books - in doing so, they can all practice Sola Scriptura, but it makes no difference as we together norm the doctrines among us. Your point - while off topic and interesting - just doesn’t matter. With the POSSIBLE exception of a single verse in one of those books, NONE use any of it for the confirmation of doctrine. And the only verse that is used (and that only by ONE) is moot - as the other that embraces that as Scripture agrees.
I’m not a lawyer … but I think it is obvious that you just changed context.Why would we bear the burden of proof about a doctrine we don’t even teach? It’s your error…you clean it up.
Sorry friend, but you are wrong. There is no “sure” definition of what is and, therefore, what is not sola scriptura. It remains a moving target. I would personally agree with you that SS is not “all knowledge is contained in the Bible”, but beyond that it’s anybodies guess.
I wont claim anything regarding SS because it is an invention that continues to mutate. What is true of it today may not have been true of it yesterday and may not be true of it tomorrow. It is at the whim of some invisible consensus of non-authoritative adherents. That invisible consensus remains dynamic and will never nor can never be fixed for all time.
Yeah, nice try but it dont fly. We dont respect the authority of anyone who claims to define the doctrine - including you! If we had an authoritative reference it would come from the Vatican and you would, of course, reject it! Apart from that, we have no single “reliable reference”; we have thousands of equally unreliable, unauthoritative references. I personally don’t believe SS exists except in the minds of those who adhere to their personal understanding of it. And I believe the burden of proof is upon you to provide an authoritative definition of it, which, of course you cannot and will not do because as soon as you do it will contradict several of the sources you listed above. You can argue 'till your blue in the face, but creating a definition of SS remains a tradition of men and nothing else. Like I said: What else is there to discuss?
THANK YOU Drawmack for that.
And I am still am waiting for a definition of Scripture.
Josiah,