Some clarifications on Sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

 Correct.

See? I AM teachable!

If something is not a necessary truth for salvation, it isn't a doctrine.

Jon

I can’t think of a any reason this proposition would not be true, but I am very concerned about the problem still of who decides what is “necessary”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JonNC;12415802]Agreed, Gabe. It isn’t the purpose of the practice of SS to be the keys. From the confessions: The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written

Thanks for the Orthodox Christian definition, I thought it was another new title being applied to another non-Catholic Christian denomination.

The keys were given to Peter alone as primacy, and then to the apostles locally. But that is not my point of discussion here. The keys Jesus informs Peter alone here; “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, and what EVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven”.

The Keys Peter possesses are not only for the binding and loosing of sin. The keys of the Kingdom are for Peter to bind and loose “what ever” Peter binds and looses on earth, heaven binds and looses.

The problem with Sola Scriptura here; It does not record every problem in detail in the ages to come to which Peter will need to exercise His God given Keys to bind and loose.

Sola Scriptura fails tremendously here. There is nothing in Sola Scriptura to bind and loose anything.

Peter and the Church are faced with every age until Jesus returns to bind and loose what ever on earth, that which the Sola Scriptura can never do by any Sola practices.

For example; The Word Trinity is not found in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura never gives any authority to Peter and the Church to pronounce such a doctrine that derived from Apostolic Traditional faith, not from Sola Scriptura.

I mention this example only to relate past and future Christian world circumstances, when Peter and the Church will have to act with her keys, in order to defend and protect the full deposit of the Apostolic faith unchanged.

It is Peter and the Church who have protected and defended the canon of scripture from falling into error. The Sola Scriptura does not exercise the keys of the kingdom on earth.

St. Paul relates to divine revelation and apostolic teaching coming down to us by Oral Word and Letter (Epistle). There is no Sola Scriptura revealed from holy writ itself.

That what is transmitted Orally comes from the mouth of those who possess the Keys of the Kingdom of God.

The problem with Sola Scriptura it contradicts scripture here; “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing the Word”, Faith never comes by Sola Scriptura, so how can it be a faith practice? when Sola Scriptura is never revealed or taught from Sola Scriptura.

Yet my focus from this discussion leads up to my main point in all of this exchange;

That Word which proceeds from the divine Key holders (Peter and the apostles) of the Kingdom, its transmitted first Orally made present in Christian practice. The letters are written later and sent to other communities. These Apostolic letters will later become canonized as God inspired scripture, by Oral Sacred Tradition revealed from the mouths of the Key holders = Peter and the Catholic Church.

It is that Word from which the key holder teach and preach to bind and loose that defies any Sola Scriptura practice, when the two are never isolated as a Sola practice.

I call to your attention, to the signs and wonders that follow the Word by the key holder that confirm the Word. Immediately the Immaculate Conception comes to mind.

Upon mentioning this; Luther who founds the Lutheran community, Jesus never gives Luther any keys of the kingdom to bind and loose on earth. Luther is never an apostolic successor to pronounce any new practices such as Sola Scriptura to deny the infallible Word from the apostles mouth as inspired, because Peter declared their Word recorded in writing as inspired by his Word as Key holder. Yet Luther rejects Oral Tradition of the Apostles who quote or teach from the Deutero- canonical books recorded in the New Testament.

In short there is never any Sola Scriptura without the exercise of the divine Keys to the Kingdom. The divine Keys determined what is God inspired writing and what is not God inspired writing, without Sola Scriptura, because Jesus gave His divine Keys to Peter and His apostles. Jesus did not give His keys to holy writ. Holy writ records that Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone first and then to the local apostles.

You mentioned Lutheran tradition. What tradition does Luther teach and preach that is new and other than what the apostolic successors do not already have? Apostolic Tradition has Peter and the apostles possessing the divine Keys Jesus gives them to exercise on earth.

Most Sola Scriptura practices I have come across, make the claim that scripture reveals Jesus giving His keys to the kingdom of God to the Church, thus they take it upon themselves as a Church, that Sola Scriptura gives them the keys to bind and loose on earth. Which goes directly against Apostolic Tradition. Does Luther tradition teach and preach this type of Sola Scriptura?

Peace be with you Jon

 

[Kliska]

To whom did Christ promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit…to the individual or to the Church?

Precisely; who did He promise the guidance of the Spirit to? The church (the ekklesia), the magisterium, the pope? The RCC in essence teaches “trickle down” truth; the Spirit teaches the magisterium and the pope, and the magisterium and the pope teach the church. That’s not the view of most protestants, instead the Spirit is promised to the ekklesia, who are all the out-called ones; you, me, the pope, etc… all of us.

John says “you need no man teach you” to believers. The magisterium and the pope are men.

Who will teach the truth…the individual or the Church?

We already agree on that; the Spirit will.

 

[Duane1966]

Many Protestants say that the Doctrines and Traditions of the RCC are man made. They believe that man is intrinsically evil, and all things man made should be condemned. Since the doctrine of SS came about in the 1500’s and is nowhere to be found in the bible, then isn’t it a man-made tradition?

p.s. I have no doubt that one day some independent sect or denomination will change St. Paul’s words from all scriptue to only scripture.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Precisely; who did He promise the guidance of the Spirit to? The church (the ekklesia), the magisterium, the pope? The RCC in essence teaches “trickle down” truth; the Spirit teaches the magisterium and the pope, and the magisterium and the pope teach the church. That’s not the view of most protestants, instead the Spirit is promised to the ekklesia, who are all the out-called ones; you, me, the pope, etc… all of us.

John says “you need no man teach you” to believers. The magisterium and the pope are men.

We already agree on that; the Spirit will.

If we look at all the different Christians accross the world, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and protestant that view seems impossible. The ecclesiastical authorities and theologians of one particular tradition interpret scripture in different ways to everyone else. How can the Holy spirit be given in equal proportion to them all? It seems improbable that such a situation should arise wherein major differences, which cause actual schism would be prompted by the Holy spirit.

Secondly, you say you need no man to teach you. Did you read the bible alone without reference to Pastors, Sermons, articles, books, lectures, debates and or whatever other medium we can think of for communicating what we think the scripture might say? I find the claim absurd that you need no man; you need no one who thinks purely in a fleshly manner, in a purely human manner but you still need humans imbued by God to teach and correct the things you know. God seems to work in a manner that entails teaching from people from one generation to another.

None of us would dare not to submit to the apostles if we were living in the first century and wanted to be Christian so why would we dare not to submit to those whom they established?

 

[pablope]

Precisely; who did He promise the guidance of the Spirit to? The church (the ekklesia), the magisterium, the pope? The RCC in essence teaches “trickle down” truth; the Spirit teaches the magisterium and the pope, and the magisterium and the pope teach the church. That’s not the view of most protestants, instead the Spirit is promised to the ekklesia, who are all the out-called ones; you, me, the pope, etc… all of us.

But who will speak for the Church? Will the HS come down and show himself as a human being and teach?

John says “you need no man teach you” to believers. The magisterium and the pope are men.

 

[Kliska]

If we look at all the different Christians accross the world, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and protestant that view seems impossible. The ecclesiastical authorities and theologians of one particular tradition interpret scripture in different ways to everyone else. How can the Holy spirit be given in equal proportion to them all?

The Holy Spirit is a Person, and He isn’t present in “proportion.” What I mean is, a person, an individual either has the Spirit or he doesn’t. Each individual has given over authority to the Spirit in different proportions, however, and that leads to, as an example, different interpretations of scripture. Most humans don’t like to change their minds, especially on doctrinal issues that they have become stubborn over or doctrinal issues that gives worldly power if seen a certain way. The problem, we agree, is always on the part of humans, not God.

Using your examples we can also see the same issue with “tradition.” Who has the tradition right, the Orthodox Churches, or the Catholic churches?

Secondly, you say you need no man to teach you. Did you read the bible alone without reference to Pastors, Sermons, articles, books, lectures, debates and or whatever other medium we can think of for communicating what we think the scripture might say? I find the claim absurd that you need no man; you need no one who thinks purely in a fleshly manner, in a purely human manner but you still need humans imbued by God to teach and correct the things you know. God seems to work in a manner that entails teaching from people from one generation to another.

John wrote it, not me. Notice he was writing to those that were already believers.

What many of us feel is that the gospel isn’t something that is complicated, it is straightforward and is centered on the reality of Jesus; Who He is, what He has done, His sacrifice, death, resurrection. The Truth isn’t something to be sought after as far as complicated rules and regulations, like the Jews presented, but rather the Truth is a person to be recognized. None of us dismiss the need for the Apostles, and none of us dismiss the need for scripture which we know God guided the writers to write. There are people especially gifted to help others in a myriad of ways, but in the end, it is indeed the Spirit that guides us toward the Truth that is Christ. Some read the gospel and give their lives over to God, some read the gospel and deny Him.

None of us would dare not to submit to the apostles if we were living in the first century and wanted to be Christian

Absolutely, and that is reflected in the Nicene creed and anyone that professes it. What is debated is what did the authority look like in the time of the Apostles and what did they teach that believers had to follow in order to be submissive to God.

so why would we dare not to submit to those whom they established?

That’s begging the question that has been tackled over and over again on these boards, and in history as well. The form of the authority the RCC presents is not one that we see in the earliest time of the church, and we are repeated told to check teaching to make sure that is true. We are supposed to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

 

[pablope]

The Protestant 66 book version.

But unfortunately, your timeline is about 1600 years late. The protestant 66 canon did not show up till after the Reformation

We cannot know how widely they were distributed, but I am certain that even in the ancient world, there was a dedicated enough scholarly class to ensure that at least every church would have access to the scriptures, if not every individual believer.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If as you say that “Each individual has given over authority to the Spirit in different proportions”, how then do we tell which group has correctly adhered to the scripture? I suppose the answer is something like “compare what they say with scripture,” at which point we repeat our points that it is an inadequate method. I agree the problem is with humans, but sola scriptura seems to exasperate the problem of division, the problem of reading the bible. What sola scriptura essentially does is deny the simple proclamation, that Jesus is God who came incarnate for us to die for sins can ever be as authorative as the words of scripture. You might agree with the content of those words, be convinced that scripture teaches that substance, but that proclamation can never be a standard by which the protestant must judge. I feel the church takes a different view, that there is the preaching alongside the sacred word without which we would have little understanding of the word. So I suppose the question is this, does God use men in a church succession to teach his truth or does he inspire the individual picking up the bible to understand it? I don’t deny the latter but I would say the former is the dominant method God seems to work.
You do bring up a legitimate concern about tradition, how come the traditional churches are not united? A conversation way to big to summerize or explain but I will say this, it seems to me we need to make the best choice amongst those three groups based on what we know and perceive to be correct. I am fully convinced of the truth of orthodoxy, that the modern views of the papacy are not to be found in the fathers and Roman Catholics will disagree with me. We might have those discussions and try to get to the correct understanding, but beyond that it seems to me there is a commonality which exists between the ancient churches which does not exist in the protestant churches. A healthy respect for authority, a rejection of the teaching “we need no man,” of which I say we need the ultimate man Christ. Then we need the lesser men the apostles, then we need the even lesser men the fathers and then finally we need our pastors and then finally we need each other.
Now what did John write? As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit–just as it has taught you, remain in him.1 John 2:27
If we are to take in the sense that we need no man, do we need John to tell us these words? What is the teaching of the Holy spirit? How does the Holy spirit operate? How did the apostles operate? Did they simply preach the word and baptise and leave? No, they preached the word, some accepted and were baptised and then they were taught by the apostles the faith in them. If you truly believed this in a literal sense then you would not need the scripture which I agree teaches the believer concerning things unto to salvation. I don’t know how exactly to interpret John here, but I do know how the apostles acted and if we are to believe this to a hyper literal extent throw out our books and our pastors sermons, all we need is the Holy spirit. I don’t think protestants are willing to go that far myself.

Now I’m glad you would submit to the apostles, let me raise a historical issue for you. There were many groups in the second century all claiming to have the true teaching of Christ. Some were like Ignatius who stressed the Bishop, some were like Marcion who insisted the God of the Old testament was evil, some were like Iraneaus who maintained the public preaching of the churches and the scripture is the standard to which we must submit, others were hebraists who insisted on following the old law. Using the holy spirit alone, how do we determine which we should belong to? Or do we form our own group? Also don’t address me as a Roman Catholic, I will not defend Rome or its errors.

 

[Covenanter]

Hi guys. I am doing my best to keep up with the replies here, so I am sorry if I have left anybody feeling ignored. I will try to respond to each direct reply to my posts.

Yep “generally” and “almost”. Two key words that would become the driving force to call the councils. At least that is the only reasonable answer I would give to my question. Do you care to finish your answer and clarify the tiny details as to how you came up with the definitive 66 book canon. Surly “generally” and “almost” is not good enough, right? If so, who cares if someone decides today to take a couple books out or add a couple books in today? When we are talking about God’s word, I don’t think there is any room for “generally” or “almost”.

Peace!!!

Well, in a similar vein, the modern Catholic canon is only “generally” and “almost” the same as those proposed by various authority figures in the early church, including the Church Fathers.

I feel that the debate about what particular books comprise scripture is a separate one to the subject of this thread, which is concerned with the relationship of tradition with scripture in general.

As to why I have a 66 book canon, well… I think it is important to remember we agree on 27 of the books regarding the New Testament. I know we differ on the Old, because the Catholic OT corresponds with the Septuagint, and the Protestant OT corresponds with the Hebrew Bible. I guess there are decent arguments for both sides but like I said it is not the primary issue of this thread.

Jesus and the Apostles clearly referred to the Septuagint. In the writings of the Church Fathers inthe first 200 years (seems to be an important date to someone) there are direct quotations of the seven disputed books.

Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha. The Septuagint was of course widely used within the early church because it contained all the scripture in Greek, which was a sort of lingua franca within the ancient world, including Palestine. Most early Christians would not have been able to read Hebrew.

There were no 66 book bibles before the Reformation.

Who is the “ancient scholarly class”?

What makes you so sure there were bibles in every Church or for every believer? Can you produce any evidence to support such a claim?

We are getting a bit speculative here I think. There would have been challenges with spreading the word by written or oral means, and equally there would have been all sorts of human ingenuity to overcome those challenges.

I believe that God would provide for his church.

Not a bit.

What Scriptures was Paul referencing?

The true scriptures, whatever they may be! Neither of us can say anything more on this. He stays silent here as to which particular books compose the scripture he speaks of.

Yes, but that recognition came from the authority appointed by Christ.

The authority in this case (Peter writing in 2 Peter, lest we lose track amongst all the quoting) is scriptural in nature. Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit as he wrote these words, on merit of them being scripture.

Both things are true. They were Scripture as soon as they were written, and they were established as such for the Church by the authority appointed by Christ. This was necessary because there were hundreds of books/epistles floating around claiming to be inspired, and accepted by some as inspired.

It is no different than the Trinity. Of course the Church believed in one God in three persons, but this also needed to be “established” through an authorative council to prevent heresies.

I am happy to agree with you if this is your take on things. My disagreement is with those who say that the church cannot be subordinate to scripture, on the grounds that the church established the scripture. The New Testament is of course scriptural entirely by virtue of its inherent quality, and its status is not something that can be conferred upon it by external authorities. The church only “establishes” scripture in the sense that it acknowledges the inherent quality of the scriptures and enforces such acknowledgement as a matter of church discipline, while excluding all man-made writings from claiming such a status.

Both things are true, again, but the testimony of the Church is not “subjective” either. The Word of God is also alive and well in the Church, and He has promised to lead her into “all Truth”, therefore when the Church makes such dogmatic pronouncements, it comes from the Holy Spirit.

While God of course promises to bless and guide the church with the Holy Spirit, I think it is important to remember that this does not mean it is free from error, or even doctrinal error. I do not quite understand where that particular Catholic belief originated from.

Doctrinal error was rife even amongst the true church. For example Paul acknowledges the legitimacy of the churches in Galatia, while at the same time dedicating his letter to them to tackling their doctrinal errors which the Judaizers had introduced. Similarly, there is sharp criticism of most of the seven churches in Revelation.

I do not see where this idea that the church is free from error (even only in certain circumstances) comes from.

 

[Covenanter]

I know you might want to believe it is, but it is not. If the Church does not have authority, then the Church cannot make the decision to determine which books belong in the canon. If the Church does have “the proper remit of the church as the pillar of truth” then the Scriptures are not the “final authority” on every thing.

The scriptures themselves establish the church as a subordinate authority with the power to enforce discipline within the church (Acts 15/16). Acknowledgement of the true canon is part and parcel of such discipline. In being called the “pillar and ground of truth”, I do not see how the church necessarily supersedes the final authority of the scripture.

This is a self contradictory statement. How can they be subject if the “norm” is not available?

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15–16

The truth is that there has always been an equal and entwined relationship between the Word of God that is written and that which was received orally.

The “norm” was available to those who taught the doctrines. Also, I would say that that passage from 2 Thessalonians seems to refer merely to the means of communication (‘letters’ of course not being limited to scriptural ones). I think it would be stretching things to say that it is somehow implying a dichotomy between the written scripture and some sort of oral parallel.

Yes. They [the ancient scripture] were writings that were vigorously protected and promulgated by the Magesterium.

I don’t think there was a Magesterium as such in those ancient times, but I do agree that the ancient church vigorously defended and protected the scriptures.

And by what authority does one justify the “almost”?

Why are is the Septuagint used by the Apostles not good enough?

Well, it is equally true for the Catholic canon, that at best it is only similar to that proposed by the Church Fathers.

Regarding the Septuagint, as I understand things, it was used because it was the best Greek translation of what the ancient Jews regarded as scripture, as well as containing some writings they did not.

But unfortunately, your timeline is about 1600 years late. The protestant 66 canon did not show up till after the Reformation

The status of the deuterocanonical books within the Catholic Canon was only established at Trent around 1546. Prior to that, only a few regional councils had spoken on the matter, which of course did not have the authority to speak for the whole church.

So ironically, the Catholic 73 canon book did not show up until it was created as a response to the Reformation.

The question is about AD200, and in this time, al the scholarly class were being hunted down and executed by the Romans, and burning everything Christian they could get a hold of.

And by the way, how do you think they were making copies then, by the printing press or by hand copying?

So the question then…how could this scholarly class have access to the Scriptures, or much less, the 66 book protestant canon?

This is all highly speculative. Spreading the Gospel would have of course been highly challenging by any means amidst such persecution. But ingenuity prevails and God provides. We are promised that the very gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. If God is for us, who can be against us? Would it have been beyond God’s power to provide for his church?

Yes, because if you go back one verse, and include v14, it contradicts your own belief and statement, it is not Scripture alone. Again, here is the passage from V14:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And by the way, which Scripture does St. Paul refer to, the 66 book protestant Bible or the 73 book Catholic Bible or something else?

I think a plain reading of those verses show that Paul is speaking purely of the Holy Scriptures when he says they are able to make us wise unto salvation.

As for what scripture Paul was referring to, I think it is possible that he could have meant all the scriptures inspired by God, or purely the Old Testament (given the context). Of course, he does not speak explicitly on our present debate about the 66 or 73 book canon.

 

[Covenanter]

EDIT: Apologies for triple post but I exceeded the 6,000 word post limit. Other two parts to this reply are on the previous page.

No. New Testament then meant or referred to the Eucharist, or the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine. The “New Testament” later referred to the writings compiled as the NT which testifies to the “New Testament” or the Real Presence.

The New Testament is another term for New Covenant, in other words the covenant of grace which has replaced the old covenant of works. Please don’t make me debate the ‘Real Presence’ as well, there is only so much I can cope with!

We would not know they were God breathed or inspired until the Church decided which would be God-breathed.

Do you know that there were writings in circulation also that were regarded as God breathed but did not make it to the final canon? So what do you say to those that were excluded, do you consider them God-breathed also?

Can you see the error in your words “until the Church decided which would be God-breathed”. It would only make sense to read “until the Church decided which were God-breathed”.

I think that slip of the tongue just betrayed a big fault in the Catholic position on this issue. The scripture was established by God, not the church. The church merely enforces that which is already established by God, and in doing so serves as the pillar and ground of truth.

Some early Christian communities did not regard Revelations as inspired, but some considered the Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth as inspired.

Do the opinions of these early Christians mean that Revelation was somehow ever not inspired the way it is today? Or that the Epistle of Clement of Rome somehow once was inspired?

But what was Athanasius authority to determine a final canon of the Bible?

We don’t have much else to go on, considering that nobody spoke with universal authority on this matter until the controversy brought about by the Reformation.

 

[Kliska]

If as you say that “Each individual has given over authority to the Spirit in different proportions”, how then do we tell which group has correctly adhered to the scripture? I suppose the answer is something like “compare what they say with scripture,” at which point we repeat our points that it is an inadequate method.

Not if you believe that you are lead by the Spirit into all Truth. In short, it is working out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and realizing that one day we all have to stand before God and give an account. In that day, if I’ve believed or practiced something wrong, that responsibility falls on me. I can’t point to another believer, whether pastor or pope, and try to shrug off responsibility. It is that idea that fuels many protestants’ (and Catholics’) drive for bible study.

What sola scriptura essentially does is deny the simple proclamation, that Jesus is God who came incarnate for us to die for sins can ever be as authorative as the words of scripture.

You’ve lost me on this one, sorry if I’m not understanding. A sola scriptura advocate doesn’t believe that someone has to have a Bible in their hand and read it cover to cover in order to repent. We also believe the gospel was indeed proclaimed orally, and people could indeed respond to that.

So I suppose the question is this, does God use men in a church succession to teach his truth or does he inspire the individual picking up the bible to understand it?

Further the question is does God use men in a church succession to teach infallibly something that is not contained in scripture in full, and what precisely does that “church succession” look like? Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Overseers, Elders, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Magisterium, Councils, etc…

You do bring up a legitimate concern about tradition, how come the traditional churches are not united? A conversation way to big to summerize or explain but I will say this, it seems to me we need to make the best choice amongst those three groups based on what we know and perceive to be correct.

But the core of what you present; “we need to make the best choice amongst those three groups based on what we know and perceive to be correct” is at the core of our discussion. Just as you felt lead to the Orthodox Church, I believe the Spirit leads us in life in order that we may be conformed to the image of the Son, each of us. His Spirit testifying to our spirit. Notice John is clear; we need God, hence we need the Son to teach us, the Spirit to guide us. No, I don’t believe the Spirit will ever contradict Himself, but I also believe He is quite capable of putting us exactly where He wants us so that we, you and I both, can be conformed.

Somewhere along the way things have been changed or interpreted and applied in a way that makes unity amongst all of us to be almost impossible, and I do think that is the Devil weaseling his way in. What I mean is the more dogma, the more definitions, the more outside philosophy we let in, the more opportunity to split us up. In short, I feel doctrine is important, and the Truth is critical but we need to make sure that charity is intact and we don’t punish one “weaker in the faith.” I think one of the greatest ways to unity is to see the Body of Christ as it is, and to acknowledge one another as brothers and sisters. Protestants have not been the best in that area. And we need to see room for us to grow in knowledge and in faith.

If we are to take in the sense that we need no man, do we need John to tell us these words? What is the teaching of the Holy spirit? How does the Holy spirit operate? How did the apostles operate? Did they simply preach the word and baptise and leave?

The scriptures do record times of quick teaching and making sure the person understood who Jesus was and what He came to do, followed by baptism. Take the Ethiopian for example. It does tend to bother me that joining a liturgical church has now apparently got to the point of a long period of teaching, and only after that long period is the person allowed to be baptized. It signals, from my POV, that perhaps the teachings we insist on perhaps were not insisted on by the Apostles, nor understood in the way we strive to understand them today.

Now I’m glad you would submit to the apostles, let me raise a historical issue for you. There were many groups in the second century all claiming to have the true teaching of Christ. Some were like Ignatius who stressed the Bishop, some were like Marcion who insisted the God of the Old testament was evil, some were like Iraneaus who maintained the public preaching of the churches and the scripture is the standard to which we must submit, others were hebraists who insisted on following the old law. Using the holy spirit alone, how do we determine which we should belong to? Or do we form our own group? Also don’t address me as a Roman Catholic, I will not defend Rome or its errors.

I apologize, when I’m responding sometimes I forget which church the person I’m responding to belongs too. That’s my fault, and my poor short term memory. The way we see it is that teaching must align with scripture and if we hear a teaching and turn to scripture and find contradiction, we reject the teaching. So, take the legalistic Judaizers, we have scripture directly teaching against such things, esp. from Paul. We know the error from scripture, and from the guidance of the Spirit who inspired scripture and who guides us.

 

[Duane1966]

Precisely; who udid He promise the guidance of the Spirit to? The church (the ekklesia), the magisterium, the pope? The RCC in essence teaches “trickle down” truth; the Spirit teaches the magisterium and the pope, and the magisterium and the pope teach the church. That’s not the view of most protestants, instead the Spirit is promised to the ekklesia, who are all the out-called ones; you, me, the pope, etc… all of us.in

John says “you need no man teach you” to believers. The magisterium and the pope are men.

We already agree on that; the Spirit will.

Which begs the question why is John teaching here if we need no man? Wasn’t he a man?

Kind of voids 2 Thessalonians 2:15 doesn’t it?

Methinks you cherry picked a verse and twisted it once again to suit your needs (which seems to always happen with SS adherents).

But if you expand the text you see that John is talking about using the Holy Spirit (which we have been sealed with in the Sacrament of Confirmation) to spot false teachers, or specifically the anti-christ. In fact the whole section is a warning against anti-christs.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Kliska;12419368] The way we see it is that teaching must align with scripture and if we hear a teaching and turn to scripture and find contradiction, we reject the teaching.

Sola Scriptura is never found in sacred Scripture, why don’t you follow your Sola Scriptura practice and reject the new man made tradition of Sola Scriptura?

It is evident from scripture that Sola Scriptura is not taught or revealed from all of scripture.

Are not Christians called to practice what we preach?

Peace be with you

 

[Duane1966]

The 7 books in the NT

[scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html](http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html)

Take special notice of the Golden Rule in Tobit.

People say well He Never quotes them verbatim. My reply is :

If I say all the people you can fool some of the time, all the time you can deceive some people, but all of the time you can’t fool everyone, since I changed Barnum’s quote a little can I truly say that his saying did not influence mine? That would be absurd.

 

[Kliska]

Sola Scriptura is never found in sacred Scripture, why don’t you follow your Sola Scriptura practice and reject the new man made tradition of Sola Scriptura?

It is evident from scripture that Sola Scriptura is not taught or revealed from all of scripture.

Are not Christians called to practice what we preach?

Peace be with you

I don’t call those who don’t practice sola scriptura anathema. Embracing the idea of sola scriptura is not necessary for salvation. And, again, sola scriptura is not the same as solo scriptura.

 

[Kliska]

Methinks you cherry picked a verse and twisted it once again to suit your needs (which seems to always happen with SS adherents).

If you feel that way towards me and my motives, there will be nothing I can say to dissuade you of that. It obviously offends you, and for that I’m sorry.

 

[Duane1966]

Sola Scriptura is never found in sacred Scripture, why don’t you follow your Sola Scriptura practice and reject the new man made tradition of Sola Scriptura?

It is evident from scripture that Sola Scriptura is not taught or revealed from all of scripture.

Are not Christians called to practice what we preach?

Peace be with you

John: Not everything He did has been set down here.

 

[Duane1966]

If you feel that way towards me and my motives, there will be nothing I can say to dissuade you of that. It obviously offends you, and for that I’m sorry.

Forgive me, that was uncharitable of me.