Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[Gorgias]

Because the Reformers were actually trying to steer the people back to the Bible and following what the Bible says verses going with tradition.

But they added doctrines that had never been part of the Church’s teaching! That seems to be a more clear example of what Peter had been warning about!

The Reformers wanted people to be able to read the Bible on their own and pushed to have the Bible translated into several languages so that people could read the Word.

There were vernacular translations of the Bible prior to the time of the Reformers. The idea that the Catholic Church did not allow vernacular translations is a tall tale.

And, let’s be honest: Luther wanted people to read the Bible so that they would agree with his novel innovations in theology. When they didn’t – and came up with their own interpretations – he was quite perturbed.

So the intent of the Reformers did not go against the Word, they actually wanted to bring people closer to the Word, and I don’t thing satan would try to bring people closer to the Word.

Are you sure about that? Because, if you read his temptations of Christ in the wilderness, Satan goes right to the Scriptures… but twists them to his own novel interpretations. Which, if you think about it, is kinda the experience of the sixteenth century…

 

[medwigel]

So, for 1500 years, no one heeded Peter, and then suddenly, at the advent of their breach with the Church, the Reformers were the first ones to realize that everyone – up to and including the early church fathers and apostles – were mistaken?

Again, you keep focusing on the Reformation as the source of this disagreement but questions about the Apocrypha started way before the 1500s, yes, there were church leaders who questioned the authenticity of theses books way back when it was proposed that they be added.
The inclusion of these books were debated as early as 300s AD. Even Jerome, who was a protege of the pope of the time, doubted the authenticity of these books and went as much and to state that in the prologue of each of the books in question.
Even the Jews, and these books would have been written by Jews, have rejected these books as Scripture.

So some of the early church father’s own contemporaries thought that they were wrong.

 

[medwigel]

But they added doctrines that had never been part of the Church’s teaching! That seems to be a more clear example of what Peter had been warning about!

What doctrines are you referring to?

 

[medwigel]

In Peter’s day the “discoverers” used the LXX, the Greek Old Testament, not the 66 book canon Protestants use.

And as I stated before, there was disagreement over those extra texts at that time. Even the Jews, who hold the OT that we use as sacred Scripture deny the Apocrypha as scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, you keep focusing on the Reformation as the source of this disagreement but questions about the Apocrypha started way before the 1500s, yes, there were church leaders who questioned the authenticity of theses books way back when it was proposed that they be added.

Yes, and these questions themselves were resolved way before the 1500s!

The inclusion of these books were debated as early as 300s AD. Even Jerome, who was a protege of the pope of the time, doubted the authenticity of these books and went as much and to state that in the prologue of each of the books in question.

Yes, but when his pope told him to include them, he did!

Even the Jews, and these books would have been written by Jews, have rejected these books as Scripture.

As the story goes, that happened in the late 1st century, and was part of the movement to exclude Christians from Jewish practice. In other words, the very idea that the Jews rejected these books is part of an alleged Jewish attempt to distance itself from Christian belief!

Besides which, who had authority over the Bible in the late first century… the Church, or Jewish leadership?

So some of the early church father’s own contemporaries thought that they were wrong.

I think this, more than anything else, highlights the rift between Reformation theology and Church theology: for Reformers, if anyone, no matter whom, objects, their objections are held as authoritative; in the Church, it is the ‘teaching authority’ (aka ‘magisterium’) of the Church who has the authority to decide, and these decisions are then held to be true. (I mean, imagine the chaos if the Supreme Court were to make a decision, and then individuals were able to say “sorry, I disagree. I’m not going to act in accord with your decision…”!!!)

Gorgias:

[The Reformers] added doctrines that had never been part of the Church’s teaching! That seems to be a more clear example of what Peter had been warning about!

What doctrines are you referring to?

For a start?

• imputed righteousness
• predestination to damnation
• no ministerial priesthood
• baptism as mere symbol
• Eucharist as mere symbol
• personal interpretation of Scripture

… that should be enough to give a good idea: the Reformation introduced doctrine foreign to Christianity of the preceding 1500 years.

 

[Agathon]

And as I stated before, there was disagreement over those extra texts at that time. Even the Jews, who hold the OT that we use as sacred Scripture deny the Apocrypha as scripture.

The same Jews who rejected Christ.

 

[Agathon]

Even Jerome, who was a protege of the pope of the time, doubted the authenticity of these books and went as much and to state that in the prologue of each of the books in question.

And Jerome submitted to the Church instead of continuing in his doubt. Ain’t that something!

 

[Chris4]

But not all oral tradition is Scripture

Before the Gospel of Jesus was put down it was oral, (at least upto 49 AD). From your assertion before then, it meant nothing until Mark made it holy by putting it down. This might be difficult to swallow. It would mean the Oral Tradition of the life of Jesus was inferior and only attained its sacredness through pen, after some two decades. You are also making the assertion of John 21:25, 2 John v,12, 3 John v. all nullity just because he never wrote them down? Rest assured that what he did not put down , was carried down the ages through oral transmission with the aid of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Truth is is in the Church and is more faithful to it even according to Scripture.

 

[medwigel]

The same Jews who rejected Christ.

The same Jews who we get the Old Testament from and same Jews who Jesus lived as.

 

[medwigel]

And Jerome submitted to the Church instead of continuing in his doubt. Ain’t that something!

But in protest he still put a disclaimer in the prologue in each book. Now ain’t that something?

 

[medwigel]

Besides which, who had authority over the Bible in the late first century… the Church, or Jewish leadership?

So where did we get the Old Testament from?

 

[medwigel]

for Reformers, if anyone, no matter whom, objects, their objections are held as authoritative; in the Church, it is the ‘teaching authority’ (aka ‘magisterium’) of the Church who has the authority to decide, and these decisions are then held to be true.

That’s not true. The Reformers wanted to get us away from non-Biblical traditions, so disagreements/objects were measured up to the Word of God, and God’s Word was the final authority no that of man.
One of Luther’s main objects was this system of “indulgence” that was practiced and taught, which was a way to “pay down you sin and reduce the punishment for your sin”. Now where in the Bible does it every say you have to pay for your sins?!? Jesus paid for our sins, once and for all, yet the Church leaders would send people out to collect money so that you could buy your way into heaven.
Someone needed to speak against that! That doctrine was not just unbiblical, is was straight out wrong. So what did that mean for the poor people who couldn’t buy their way out of the consequences of sin?
And if you can buy your way out of sin then Jesus died for nothing! If we can just buy away our consequences for sin then His life, death and resurrection was unnecessary.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us[e] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

 

[Agathon]

The same Jews who we get the Old Testament

Those Jews would’ve done the exact opposite of what the other Jews did.

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

And Jerome submitted to the Church instead of continuing in his doubt. Ain’t that something!

But in protest he still put a disclaimer in the prologue in each book. Now ain’t that something?

You mean this?

“I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” […] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.”

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

.

The inclusion of these books were debated as early as 300s AD. Even Jerome, who was a protege of the pope of the time, doubted the authenticity of these books and went as much and to state that in the prologue of each of the books in question.

.

This is a partial truth medwigel.

I asked before if you would like to see what St. Jerome said in follow up.

Do you want me to get the information that St. Jerome later said about the Scripture Canon?

Will it make a difference to you? (Because as it stands, you are merely repeating “talking points” without the follow up information.)

Remember also, the inclusion of books and letters concerning the NEW Testament Deuterocanon was “debated” too
(do you think “debate” made the NEW Testament less trustworthy too?).

 

[Chris4]

Read 2 Peter 2:1-3 and Matthew 7:15
Christ is not misleading the Church, its the devil.
Christ is giving us a warning against false teachers because sin is still in the world and the devil is alive and well and is always looking for ways to destroy the Church by any means.

Medwigel it is at least heartening to note that you concede Christ cannot mislead the Church he founded and perpetually leads. Unfortunately the same people in John 6:66 who found Christ’s teaching hard are still around. They are still denying Christ’s teaching, thinking that He left the Church. They can’t point out from Scripture where he says he will leave it and for whatever reason. It is us who have left Christ because of the hard teachings which to us are ‘unscriptural’ John 6:60. But Christ is uncompromising and tells us all in the Catholic Church . " Will you also go away?" John 6:67. But our answer follows in v 68.

 

[Gorgias]

So where did we get the Old Testament from?

From the people of God who were, at the time, the possessors of the covenant in force. Just like we get the NT from the authority of the possessors of Jesus’s New Covenant!

 

[Gorgias]

One of Luther’s main objects was this system of “indulgence” that was practiced and taught, which was a way to “pay down you sin and reduce the punishment for your sin

The problem was the payment, not the reception of grace through prayer…

 

[pablope]

Now where in the Bible does it every say you have to pay for your sins?!? Jesus paid for our sins, once and for all, yet the Church leaders would send people out to collect money so that you could buy your way into heaven.

This is a wrong understanding of indulgences.

Matt 5:26…26 Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

So, what you think what it is that you have to pay to the last penny for?

 

[pablope]

Agathon:

In Peter’s day the “discoverers” used the LXX, the Greek Old Testament, not the 66 book canon Protestants use.

And as I stated before, there was disagreement over those extra texts at that time. Even the Jews, who hold the OT that we use as sacred Scripture deny the Apocrypha as scripture.

So, a question for you, medwigel…what is the authority of the Jews (who rejected Christ) have anything to do with what a Christian should follow?

Should a Christian follow their OT cannon, which was established, to justify their rejection of Jesus?