SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[mattp0625]

God is the highest authority because of who God is: not because of what God says.
(do you at least agree with that?)

Sola Scriptura is true because of what Scripture is : not because of what Scripture says,

I use Augustine as an example of the correct view of Scripture:
It impossible for a lesser authority to grant authority to the greater

Jesus gave authority to the Church/magisterium by the Holy Spirit. How are you to pick and choose the greater?

Additionally, who gave you this authority to decide the bible is greater authority than that given by two persons of the Trinity ?

 

[rcwitness]

I believe the Scriptures are the Word of God (written). The Eucharist is the Word of God (Hidden Manna). Tradition is the Word of God (handed down through Teaching).

These cannot be separated without harm to the Church. Yet Scripture has been separated from them. Is it rendered useless? No! It still is material sufficient to lead to repentance and belief, conversion and good works!

The Scriptures are available to be Materially Sufficient because of the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church! This Church was given His Eucharist and Teaching authority.

Scriptures can be “twisted”, but His Eucharist cannot! This is why it is a stumbling block for some.

 

[alwayswill]

I believe the Scriptures are the Word of God (written). The Eucharist is the Word of God (Hidden Manna). Tradition is the Word of God (handed down through Teaching).

These cannot be separated without harm to the Church. Yet Scripture has been separated from them. Is it rendered useless? No! It still is material sufficient to lead to repentance and belief, conversion and good works!

The Scriptures are available to be Materially Sufficient because of the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church! This Church was given His Eucharist and Teaching authority.

Scriptures can be “twisted”, but His Eucharist cannot! This is why it is a stumbling block for some.

Can you apply what you said to the Hebrew scriptures around 400 BC?
Other Catholic have already stated that misunderstanding Jesus, or Scripture, or the Church’s teachings does NOT diminish their authority.

Twisting Scripture does not diminish the authority of Scripture

 

[alwayswill]

Jesus gave authority to the Church/magisterium by the Holy Spirit. How are you to pick and choose the greater?

Additionally, who gave you this authority to decide the bible is greater authority than that given by two persons of the Trinity ?

strawman and non sequitur
Thats not my view; that conclusion does not come from my points

 

[mattp0625]

strawman and non sequitur
Thats not my view; that conclusion does not come from my points

It is a valid question that warrants thoughtful consideration.

Someone decided that scripture is greater than the authority granted to the church. Prior to that, someone decided scripture was the sole authority.

There is not a valid answer to the question of who gave Luther, or anyone, the authority to classify God’s authority into tiers.

The same question goes for those who classify books of the bible into tiers.

Additionally, Lutherans and Calvinists have tried to use Augustine from the beginning. He expressed a high view of scripture and God’s grace- nothing more.

 

[susanlo]

The reality of Peter being the Rock on which Christ founded His only Church is exemplified by the recognition of Peter’s status in Christ’s Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18). Early Church history, e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work *Adversus Haereses *in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The fact that “the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has never been accepted by everyone universally” demonstrates the reality that humanity exists in a fallen nature and the evils and selfist actions are the result of that fact, apart from the reality that so many are misinformed.

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed.

This is a big topic that could become an entire separate discussion apart from sola scriptura. If you are interested in more discussion about this and want to start a separate thread, we could discuss it more.

 

[rcwitness]

Can you apply what you said to the Hebrew scriptures around 400 BC?

Probably

Other Catholic have already stated that misunderstanding Jesus, or Scripture, or the Church’s teachings does NOT diminish their authority.

Twisting Scripture does not diminish the authority of Scripture

The Church does not diminish the Scriptures and their authority. She has always venerated the Scriptures and His Eucharist alike.

 

[sudy]

Until Christ returns, the only infallible inerrant authority we have on earth; is Scripture alone.
Not the only authority, but the only infallible inerrant authority.

To state this is to deny what Christ said: I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth… I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth.

It’s safe to say that the Holy Spirit is an infallible inerrant authority.

 

[alwayswill]

To state this is to deny what Christ said: I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth… I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth.

It’s safe to say that the Holy Spirit is an infallible inerrant authority.

I am not denying anything Christ said:
I have been led , guided, enlighten, and instructed , filled ,and changed by the Holy Spirit
Have you?
Are you infallible?

“Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,”
and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.”
1 CORINTHIANS 12:3

 

[sudy]

First of all I’m sorry that I offended you… I see how what I wrote would offend and that really wasn’t my intention. I’m not denying that the Holy Spirit dwells within you. The Holy Spirit dwells within me also. To say that I am fallible and that you are fallible does not deny that the Holy Spirit is infallible. Jesus promised that his Church will be protected… ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church].’

The Church is made to be one, in unity, with Jesus as the cornerstone… he is the Bridegroom.

Ephesians 5:26-32 Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words, so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless… A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats the Church, because we are parts of his Body.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church in truth. My point was that the Holy Spirit is infallible and remains with the Church to keep her free from error.

Acts 20:28 Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the guardians, to feed the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son.

Truth is truth, regardless of whether we understand it or not.

 

[alwayswill]

First of all I’m sorry that I offended you… I see how what I wrote would offend and that really wasn’t my intention. I’m not denying that the Holy Spirit dwells within you. The Holy Spirit dwells within me also. To say that I am fallible and that you are fallible does not deny that the Holy Spirit is infallible. Jesus promised that his Church will be protected… ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church].’

The Church is made to be one, in unity, with Jesus as the cornerstone… he is the Bridegroom.

Ephesians 5:26-32 Husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her to make her holy by washing her in cleansing water with a form of words, so that when he took the Church to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless… A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats the Church, because we are parts of his Body.

The Holy Spirit leads the Church in truth. My point was that the Holy Spirit is infallible and remains with the Church to keep her free from error.

Acts 20:28 Be on your guard for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the guardians, to feed the Church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son.

Truth is truth, regardless of whether we understand it or not.

Thank you: I am not easily offended: i understand the passion on both sides about something that we consider very important:

FYI
Withing in the next week :I’ll be starting a thread on the meaning on ekklesia as used in the context of the NT.
Protestants understand the ekklesia to mean ALL believers (ie those called out by Christ)

I hope you will participate in that thread

 

[benhur]

You keep presenting from an “either” “or” approach and therefore I find the initial premise inaccurate. It becomes either Scripture or the Church, and of course “sola” makes and demands it so on all five of them. The Catholic position is “and” ie Scripture and the Church and Tradition, for reasons previously stated. Rejecting sola scriptura is not rejecting Scripture, its rejecting “sola” because it opens the door to personal opinion, to whims, to heresy, to division, to confusion, to false teachers.

Do you understand what you are reading? How can I unless someone guides me?

Hi D,

Actually I was going to say the same thing of the either or approach against SS. For instance folks say with SS you go aimlessly thru history desperately discerning truth, or that we are then "orphans’’, or that we reject Peter, or church offices. As I said , as if we just take the bible , curl up in a ball, in a cave, and say “I am all set.”.

We do not have the either /or argument, or we should not , as you should not, as a straw man.

Again, you p[lace either or with personal opinion. As if one can not have a personal opinion. As if the Lord does want to give you a "personal " opinion. As if you will not be required to give your "personal’ opinion on your judgement day. As if your "personal’’ opinion can not be shared by millions, by a magisterium, by rightly divided Writ, by a bishop, or Pope, or theologian. As if the Lord did not ask the apostles ,and all of us, “Whom do you say that I am, what is your personal opinion?” As if a personal opinion does not negate (name removed by moderator)ut from all other authoritative opinions . As if all other authorities are not also a conglomeration of personal opinions. As if the promise of the guidance of the Holy spirit ,is not upon whomever shall seek and call out, but that He is *exclusive, a respecter of offices, of people. And finally , as if a “personal” opinion can not be God’s very own opinion.

Blessings

 

[alwayswill]

Hi D,

Actually I was going to say the same thing of the either or approach against SS. For instance folks say with SS you go aimlessly thru history desperately discerning truth, or that we are then "orphanls’’, or that we reject Peter, or church offices. As I said , as if we just take the bible , curl up in a ball, in a cave, and say “I am all set.”.

We do not have the either /or argument, or we should not , as you should not, as a straw man.

Blessings

Agreed: we **do not **hold to Solo Scriptura
The Difference a Vowel Make

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19

"In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. "

 

[benhur]

Agreed: we **do not **hold to Solo Scriptura
The Difference a Vowel Make

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=19

"In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of “solo” Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. "

Good article .Thanks.There is only one theopneustos, thru out most of our church history (that is that tradition or magisterium being so also is a relatively new idea).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Good article .Thanks.There is only one theopneustos, thru out most of our church history (that is that tradition or magisterium being so also is a relatively new idea).

Blessings

Of course there is only one Theopneustos! There is only One God, One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, and One Word.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Starwarsfan2;13801673]Ridiculous, Luther never called Peter the anti Christ , merely the papacy

,

I believe your rebuttal statement only confirms Luther calling the Papacy anti Christ is the same as calling Peter the anti-Christ.

Without giving a theological treatise to how this is fact; I will leave you with an ECF’s quote;

“**Where ever **Peter (Bishop of Rome) is, there is the Catholic Church”…(parenthesis mine)

and you forget that he also called the pope a brother in his writings

,
Which is a contradiction according to your interpretation. According to Luther, the Chair of Peter (Papacy) is anti-Christ, the person presiding as Pope, Luther called his brother.

secondly Luther and Lutherans accept tradition, but scripture is the final authority ( prima scriptura) ,

You pretend to accept a tradition that is evidenced in words only by scripture. But you do not practice the True Apostolic Sacred Traditions handed down by Jesus and the Apostles. For the simple fact; There is no written scripture, when the True Sacred Traditions of the Apostolic faith was handed down orally in full practice, that is not recorded for a Sola Scripturalist to follow. You have to invent your own tradition in order qualify what you think is an Apostolic Tradition.

third Luther removed no book from the NT , he merely called four of them Antilegomena, questioned, referring to the canon debates in. The early church .

Let us be clear here. Luther did what no other ECF dared to ever do, when they challenged the Duetero-canon books. Luther renamed 7 Old Testament (God breathed) Canon books of scriptures, to Apocrypha = Not inspired of God, without no universal council to qualify such a travesty to Church history and the ECF’s.

Secondly; I did not say, Luther removed books from the NT. To clarify; Luther wanted to remove James (the book of straw), Revelation, Hebrews and other NT books. But he failed to remove them, because he began to loose his wealthy supporters, who supported his new Ideologies to protest against the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus gave authority to the Church/magisterium by the Holy Spirit. How are you to pick and choose the greater?

Additionally, who gave you this authority to decide the bible is greater authority than that given by two persons of the Trinity ?

Upon reading the post’s here; I believe your post hit the nail on the head. And it silences all of James White’s anti-Catholic sentiments.

From Whence did the Sola Scripturalist gain an infallible authority or Apostolic office to decide on matters of faith, morals and where in history did God give the Sola Scriptura to determine what is God inspired or God breathed?

Now that Luther’s name has surfaced once again in these post’s. The Sola Scripturalist, appear to be repeating Protestant history; Using Sola Scriptura to protest against the Authority God placed upon Peter and the apostles and their apostolic successors today.

What confounds me, is that I am hearing in the background, that SS does not object to Church authority, Tradition.

What troubles me; No Sola Scripturalist can use Sola Scriptura to defeat any historical heresy or new heresy based on Sola Scriptura. For one reason the defeated historical heretics used Sola Scriptura to support their heresy. Ultimately, when the Catholic Church used Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture and her divine keys (Authority), is what always dealt the death blow to all historical heresies.

Can a Sola Scripturalist name one heresy, It’s founders or present leaders ever used Sola Scriptura to defeat a heresy, With the outcome for all of Christendom to follow?

In summary; Placing Sola Scriptura as the highest authority is the equal to faithfully believing Scripture is the inspired Word of God. No true Christian disputes this fact.

It is an abuse to claim Sola Scriptura supersedes the True Presence of God in present (Apostolic Liturgy), when neither is a contradiction to the other.

 

[benhur]

Of course there is only one Theopneustos! There is only One God, One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, and One Word.

Hi rc, good to ‘see’ you here.

Theopneustos is an adjective for Writ, and as found in Writ, not the church. The church however, is the pillar of the truth, as found in Writ, *now *holding up Apostolic teaching and their Writ as the Word of God. Because the church holds up the Word does not mean she is equal to that which she holds up. That should not be a problem unless divine revlation thru apostles and Writ is not enough, or complete.

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

alwayswill;13803558]Can you apply what you said to the Hebrew scriptures around 400 BC?Other Catholic have already stated that misunderstanding Jesus, or Scripture, or the Church’s teachings does NOT diminish their authority.

Malachi 1: 10…I take no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts;

and I will not accept any offering from your hands! 11 From the rising of the sun to its setting,

my name is great among the nations;

Incense offerings are made to my name everywhere,

and a pure offering;

For my name is great among the nations,

says the LORD of hosts.

Majority if not All the ECF’s used the fulfilled prophecies of Malachi to defeat the protest against their Jewish counterparts, which they emphatically expressed the sacrifice God accepts from the rising to the setting of the sun is revealed in the sacrificial Eucharist = True body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World.

Leviticus 6; 5 (go to any Catholic Church in the world and you will find the perpetual fire near every tabernacle)
The fire on the altar is to be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest shall put firewood on it. On this he shall lay out the burnt offering and burn the fat of the communion offering.
6
The fire is to be kept burning continuously on the altar; it must not go out.
8 (In a Mass, the unleavened bread, oil, incense has not ceased the perpetual sacrifice unto the Lord, which Jesus fulfilled every Letter of the Passover, and unleavened, peace, guilt offerings and sacrifices unto the Lord)
**A priest **shall then take from the grain offering a handful of bran flour and oil, together with all the frankincense that is on it, and this he shall burn on the altar as a token of the offering, a sweet aroma to the LORD.
9 ( The sacred place is only where the high priest and his family could enter and eat the sacrifice unto the Lord, Jesus now tore down the dividing wall and now all are allowed into the sacred, holy place to celebrate Mass in God’s presence and Holy acceptable sacrifice)
The rest of it Aaron and his sons may eat; but it must be eaten unleavened in a sacred place: in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.

Without congesting the board here with OT writings, prophecies and Psalms which all point to Jesus fulfillment in His Eucharist.

I will conclude with Hebrews 10;19
Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20

• by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,
  21
• and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”

In Luke 24, The resurrected Jesus, opened the mind of the Church to receive knowledge and understanding of all the OT writings fulfilled in Christ. This divine revelation and understanding of scripture has been given to the mind of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Luke 24:27,44,45. If Jesus revealed all these things to His Apostles. How can an SS understand Jesus revelations of the scriptures, when they are not written, But made known and revealed to the mind of the Church, the Pillar and bulwark of Truth?

Where can an SS today get this divine revelation Jesus revealed to His Church about scripture, that is never written. Answer the Catholic Church from Sacred Oral Tradition.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes please clarify:
Is the Catholic view that there exists writings breathed of by God *(pasa graphe theopneustos) that are not considered Scripture and not included in the Canon?

• that we have access to

No is the answer to your question. Yes is the answer, that God can reveal His Word in True Presence outside of Written (recorded scripture).

That which God has written upon our hearts and minds is God breathed.

**Which do you prefer? God’s written Word Sola Scriptura? or

God who writes His Word upon our hearts and mind, and we Catholics not only do we hear the Word, See the Word, smell the Word, but we taste and Consume the Word of God with our whole being.**

That is why no Apostle, no ECF, no practicing Catholic could ever accept a Sola Scriptura practice, or doctrine.