Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[vz71]

. I’m asking you a question in a response to your assertions, not theirs.

I have asserted arguments against sola scriptura.
This seems to be very far from the questions you have been asking.

So far I have not seen anything solid enough in favor of sola scriptura to bother with.

Perhaps I just know too much history to be taken in by a few verses taken out of context.

 

[vz71]

Non-Trinitarians come up with all kinds of weird ways to interpret this. I agree, the Church has always believed in the Trinity, but the Scriptures are not explicit about it. If they were, 80% of the Bishops would not have fallen into Arianism!

Indeed.
I do not think I would believe in the trinity if not for the teaching authority of the church.

 

[medwigel]

I have asserted arguments against sola scriptura.
This seems to be very far from the questions you have been asking.

So far I have not seen anything solid enough in favor of sola scriptura to bother with.

Perhaps I just know too much history to be taken in by a few verses taken out of context.

So far others and myself have at least offered Scriptures and references to back our points, all you have offered is rhetoric.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

Hind sight is 20/20 when one already has the Apostolic Tradition of the Trinity as discerned and formulated by the Catholic Church.

So if it’s not from Scripture where did the Apostolic Tradition get there understanding of the Trinity? What is this hind sight you are referring to?

I will answer this when you have answered my original question concerning Bible alone , “where is Trinity found in scripture?”. You still have not posted that yet.

 

[vz71]

So far others and myself have at least offered Scriptures and references to back our points,

Exactly.
Why should I parrot a point made by someone else so well.
I am waiting for the witty responses to their points.

 

[medwigel]

I will answer this when you have answered my original question concerning Bible alone , “where is Trinity found in scripture?”. You still have not posted that yet.

I did, go back and read the posts
John 1:1 and John 14:15-18

 

[medwigel]

So far others and myself have at least offered Scriptures and references to back our points,

That’s right, hide behind others with no meaningful contributions of your own.

 

[guanophore]

This is symptomatic of the misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura presented by most Catholic apologists and by extension Catholic lay persons.

Actually, most Catholic Apologists are laypersons.

When faced with being obedient to Pope Leo and accepting what he knew to be wrong doctrine and practice, or holding to the gospel, Luther chose the gospel.

Every deacon, priest, bishop and cardinal takes vows of obedience.

The issues were not over doctrine, but abuses. Luther did have valid complaints, as affirmed by the Council of Trent.

But this did not give Luther the authority to create new doctrines.

Luther simply said that there is only one infallible authority, and that is the word of God as provided in scripture.

Indeed, the creation of a new doctrine, sufficient to jettison the followers from the doctrines preserved from the Apostles.

You see, fallibility, or the ability to make a mistake/error, belongs only to persons not to Sacred texts, however Holy. Texts cannot make decisions, take responsibility, and suffer consequences for wrongdoing. These are all qualities of persons. So to declare that the Scriptures suddenly have these qualities that can only belong to persons, it forces Scripture into a role it was never meant to play. The result is that everyone who is reading it supplies the missing discernment and decision making authority. This is what has created such splinters in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Scripture stands as the authority above the other sources of authority that you would uphold against it because it is God’s word.

This is the thing, though. Sacred Tradition is not held “against” Scripture. The NT was produced out of Sacred Tradition, and is inextricably interwoven with it. They uphold one another.

By my reckoning of God’s created order, God’s authority exceeds the authority of man, hence the authority of God’s word exceeds the authority of man-made tradition.

Yes, but we are not talking about “man made” tradition, but the traditions of the Apostles, which are the Word of God.

It means that God’s word, because it is God-breathed is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and doctrine. When some other authority is in conflict with God’s word, God’s word takes precedent.

We are in agreement on this, as Catholics understand that God has also breathed upon the Church, and given the Church His authority. He promised to guide the Church into all Truth. Scripture and Sacred Tradition work together against all that conflict with the once for all divine deposit of faith given to us by the Apostles.

You are assuming the Church to be the one speaking the words in scripture. Scripture is God-breathed. It is God doing the speaking. That is the way the prophets of old saw it as well. They didn’t preach on their authority. They spoke the words God gave them to speak. Thus says the Lord…

Are you suggesting that everyone who reads and interprets Scripture is a prophet speaking from God? Or does this apply only to those who believe they have the anointing of the Holy Spirit?

 

[guanophore]

The Trinity is most definitely in the Bible, it’s just not neatly laid out, you have to actually read the Bible to find it, but the Trinity is there.

It is, but it is only there for those who accept the Sacred Tradition on this point. There were a majority in the Roman Empire that did not, at one time, and there are still sects today who read the same thing we do, but don’t see it, or don’t interpret the way we do.

 

[Sean77]

He didn’t create new doctrine. He threw off false doctrine and practice and returned the church to the apostolic doctrine as presented in the scriptures, and for that he was excommunicated by a pope who was less concerned about the spiritual welfare of the church than he was in fundraising.

 

[guanophore]

He didn’t create new doctrine.

Sola Scriptura was not taught by the Church prior to that time. None of the Solas were.

He threw off false doctrine and practice and returned the church to the apostolic doctrine as presented in the scriptures

What doctrine do you think he “threw off”?

Certainly Luther promoted what he found in the Scriptures, like every good bible christian does.

for that he was excommunicated by a pope who was less concerned about the spiritual welfare of the church than he was in fundraising.

Actually, Luther excommunicated himself when he abandoned the Church’s teaching about the Eucharist and Sacraments. The Papal Bull was just a formality.

But I do agree with you, it certainly appears that Luther’s Pope was more concerned about fundraising and secular power than he was the souls of the faithful.

 

[Sean77]

This is the thing, though. Sacred Tradition is not held “against” Scripture. The NT was produced out of Sacred Tradition, and is inextricably interwoven with it. They uphold one another.

I will offer my challenge again. Define any quote of Jesus or the apostles not found in the scriptures which has been infallibly declared by Rome and demonstrate its linkage to a specific apostle.

 

[jlhargus]

So again I ask you, where is the Biblical basis for sola Scriptura?

I, unlike you, have no problems answering questions. I have given Scripture to this previously, but for your benefit I will do so again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. --We are told that Scripture is to be used. Paul never mentions the use of man’s teaching.

When your pastor preaches or teaches does he just use or read scripture only and sit down? Or does he use scripture because scripture is useful or profitable for what he wants to teach? How does he even know 2Tm3:16-17 is scripture except by Apostolic Tradition as discerned by the Church?

2Tm3:16-17 does not teach scripture only, it only teaches scripture is profitable or useful.

 

[jlhargus]

Acts 17:11 11 These were more [d]fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so

–It doesn’t say they searched man’s words or teachings to see if what Paul was preaching was true, they searched the Scripture.

But they first heard the gospel as orally revealed by Paul a man. Paul was a Jewish scholar and student of Gamiel an OT scholar. Yet Paul didn’t understand the OT correctly. He was on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians where Christ revealed true understanding. Then Paul went to the desert of Arabia for three years, probably to rethink his OT theology in the light of Christ’s revelation.

The Jewish [/b]Bereans[/b], had only Old Testament scriptures in their time. The Bereans should have or already knew the OT well, as most Jews did. Yet they only had a true understing of the OT, after Paul preached, in the light of what Christ revealed. Then they searched the scriptures (OT) in the light of the Gospel, to see if those things, not seen or understood before, were so.

God did not reveal everything at once, but over centuries, gradually unveiling a deeper understanding of those trues, giving a clearer picture, with the final revelations through Christ. The interpretative remarks of the Amplified Bible buts is very well,

[Hb1:1 In many separate revelations [each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets, 2 [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son,…]

The early fathers of the Church teach, the NT is hidden in the Old and the OT is revealed in the New.

Luke 24:26-27 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He [g]expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
–Even Christ is saying the way to know about Him is through the Scripture because that is were you will find the things concerning Him and by extension if you know Christ then you know His will for the church and His people.

Know he didn’t say the only way to know him was scripture as they had the OT already. Same as with the Bereans they didn’t understand OT properly till Christ, who they though was some man, gave them orally the gospel. They didn’t even recognize him till the breaking of bread.

 

[medwigel]

The Trinity is most definitely in the Bible, it’s just not neatly laid out, you have to actually read the Bible to find it, but the Trinity is there.

You don’t need “sacred traditions” to understand the Trinity.
There are many denominations of Christianity that believe and teach the Trinity and don’t accept or teach Catholic doctrine.
The reason why Catholic doctrine is not necessary is because it is in the Scripture.
Now Catholic doctrine can help people understand as a teaching tool, but the Trinity is not a produce of Catholic doctrine.

 

[medwigel]

The Jewish [/b]Bereans[/b], had only Old Testament scriptures in their time. The Bereans should have or already knew the OT well, as most Jews did. Yet they only had a true understing of the OT, after Paul preached, in the light of what Christ revealed. Then they searched the scriptures (OT) in the light of the Gospel, to see if those things, not seen or understood before, were so.

What Scripture are you referring to?

 

[guanophore]

You don’t need “sacred traditions” to understand the Trinity.

What you need from Sacred tradition is the lens through which to read and understand the Scripture. Of course you and I read and understand it in terms of the Trinity, because we have already accepted the doctrine from the Church. People that don’t accept that doctrine read something else.

There are many denominations of Christianity that believe and teach the Trinity and don’t accept or teach Catholic doctrine.

Indeed all Protestants retain certain elements of Sacred Tradition, of which the Trinity is one. The canon of the NT is another. Observing Sunday, the Lord’s Day, rather than the Jewish Sabbath is another. There is no commandment in Scripture that Christians should not observe the Sabbath, and in fact, the Apostles continued to do so.

The vast majority of Protestants accept at least the first 7 ecumenical councils, and the creeds.

The reason why Catholic doctrine is not necessary is because it is in the Scripture.

If this were true, we would not have non-Trinitarians reading the same scripture and having different results!

Now Catholic doctrine can help people understand as a teaching tool, but the Trinity is not a produce of Catholic doctrine.

You have a lot to learn about your early family history, medwigel.

 

[medwigel]

How does he even know 2Tm3:16-17 is scripture except by Apostolic Tradition as discerned by the Church?

He knows it’s Scripture because it’s in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

I will offer my challenge again. Define any quote of Jesus or the apostles not found in the scriptures which has been infallibly declared by Rome and demonstrate its linkage to a specific apostle.

Is this what you think is the content of Sacred Tradition? It is more of how what is written is understood/applied.

You are creating a strawman. Sacred Tradition makes no such claim.