SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[adrift]

Well of course I cannot speak for every Sola Scriptura practicing Christian in the world;
I just want Catholics to know what many SS practicing Christians accept as being true.
Knowing someone’s presuppositions can improve dialog.

To the question:
What do you say Scripture is?
(it’s the characteristics or attributes; not what is Scripture)

• All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .

Of course when Paul wrote this
Scripture is the Old Testament.

• A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned writer move by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is defined as such by the Church. Scripture is the result of the Church. The Church is not the result of Scripture.

• Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .

The interpretation of Scripture is not infallible or inerrant.

• Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .
• Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .
• It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.
• It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.
• God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.
• Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

Further discussions , no doubt will remind me of other characteristics or attributes of Scripture

Now to the SOLA:

• Are there any other God breathed writings (graphe theopneustos) not included in the Bible*?
  (*that we still have access to)
• Are there any other writings that can claim every line is infallible and inerrant ?
• Are there any other writings that it is impossible for God to disagree with?
• Are there any other writings that carry the EXACT same authority as God speaking from His Throne or Jesus preaching from the Mount?

The SS practicing Christian response to those questions are “no”.
I am not expecting Catholics to agree: just l trying to accurately represent the SS view

 

[adrift]

• All Scripture is God breathed (pasa graphe theopneustos) .

Of course when Paul wrote this
Scripture is the Old Testament and what he was referring to.

Quote:
A God breathed writing is Scripture the moment it is penned writer move by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is defined as such by the Church. Scripture is the result of the Church. The Church is not the result of Scripture.

Quote:
Every line of Scripture is infallible and inerrant (Incapable of error. Contains no errors) .

The interpretation of Scripture is not infallible or inerrant.
Scripture is only rightfully interpreted by the Church.

Scripture as the word of God is The Truth (not a truth, not merely correct) .

True

Anything statement that disagrees with Scripture, by definition must be an error .

This goes to interpretation.

It is impossible for Scripture to disagree with God.

It is impossible for God to disagree with Scripture.

But it is possible for wrongful interpretation this does not speak to what scripture is.

God speaking from His Throne; Jesus preaching from the Mount, and ALL God breathed writings carry the same EQUAL authority.

Of equal authority is the Church as this is what scripture states.

Someone misunderstanding God, Jesus, or Scripture does NOT diminish their authority .

I assume you mean the authority of God, Jesus or Scripture. How does this define what Scripture is?

Further discussions , no doubt will remind me of other characteristics or attributes of Scripture

Now to the SOLA:

Are there any other God breathed writings (graphe theopneustos) not included in the Bible*?
(*that we still have access to)

I do not make this claim but such writing as Protoevangelium of James,Infancy Gospel of Matthew,Syriac Infancy Gospel, the History of Joseph the Carpenter and the Life of John the Baptist are said by some to be Scripture that the early Church wrongfully eliminated.

Are there any other writings that can claim every line is infallible and inerrant ?Are there any other writings that it is impossible for God to disagree with?Are there any other writings that it is impossible for God to disagree with?

Are there any other writings that carry the EXACT same authority as God speaking from His Throne or Jesus preaching from the Mount?

I am not sure what you would accept as a writing but I would say the councils especially the First Council of Nicaea which developed the creed indeed by the authority of God.
Any dogma is an infallible doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation

The SS practicing Christian response to those questions are “no”.
I am not expecting Catholics to agree: just l trying to accurately represent the SS view

It is good to dialogue and of course you knew we would disagree. One of the main flaws of SS is that it seems that it is believed that Scripture came before the Church and it has supreme authority over the Church. Jesus did not say go an write down but go and preach. He did not say that His words are what His church was built on but Peter. No where in Scripture does it say what Scripture is but it does say what the Church is. In other words, SS gives Scripture the authority that Jesus gave His Church.

 

[benhur]

What I do know is that Luther created his OWN doctrines. The five solas were not doctrines before he lived.

Maybe, maybe not
The five solas perhaps were to combat things that were around when he lived that were not apostolic.

Using Augustine out of context to prove sola scriptura (as do the Calvinists for predestination) does not bring Luther closer to the apostles.

Augustine was indeed ''prima" . The only way one finds that not in context to is to misdefine SS. Just as there are 5 solas , SS does not negate the other authorities Augustine describes.

Pope Francis is much closer to the apostles than Luther. They hold the same dogmas and traditions as did Pope Benedict and Pope JP2, etc.

Sticking to Writ would sure help to clear the air on your challenged proposition, but as that is not the case…

Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle and the third Bishop of Antioch where the “disciples were first called Christians”. He was likely ordained by Peter. He wrote about loyalty to the bishop, the real presence of the Eucharist, the Catholic church, and the error of schism. That sounds much more like Pope Francis than Luther.

Beg to differ. Luther and Ignatius are alike in real presence and bishops and neutral on any head bishop. Both did not like schism.

Ignatius also called for “guidance of the comforter”, and beyond reverence and submission to bishop is the primary submission to “the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all”.

Peter met Jesus and was given authority by Jesus. Moses was given authority by God the Father. Luther was given authority by Luther.

And Francis authority from cardinals. Both Luther and Francis were ordained by successors. Neither were physically picked by Jesus, as the twelve apostles were .

Writ ( in Revelations) tells us of the approving of the twelve apostles and their reward as our foundation. Subsequent successors are quite conditional on approval of what they lay down for us.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Of equal authority is the Church as this is what scripture states.

Hi a,

Only if it is correct. So while I would agree that Writ is in context of the church authority, making equality now requires another debated element, that of equal infallibility.

One of the main flaws of SS is that it seems that it is believed that Scripture came before the Church and it has supreme authority over the Church.

Straw man, this what came first or what came second. What, because God so spoke to man , that thereafter that man is equal to what God would write, or not be equally subject to the writing ? If man can decide what God wrote so man can decide what was oral ?

What God says or writes is so, regardless of what any man says. His word is unconditionally perfect, but our compliance is totally dependent, conditional.

Jesus did not say go an write down but go and preach.

We have been over this, Jesus did say go and preach orally , then go write. Jesus is Lord of both oral and writ.

He did not say that His words are what His church was built on but Peter.

No but Peter and the twelve, and all succession, down to us, build by His Words.

No where in Scripture does it say what Scripture is but it does say what the Church is.

Disagree. And disagree to the CC definition of “church”.

In other words, SS gives Scripture the authority that Jesus gave His Church.

Either or ? It is both The apostles had authority. Their writings have authority. We do not have the apostles in the flesh, but we have their writings, to be used normatively by their successors. Pretty simple, even tradition in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

benhur #82
Writ ( in Revelations) tells us of the approving of the twelve apostles and their reward as our foundation. Subsequent successors are quite conditional on approval of what they lay down for us.

Some never learn because they ignore the truth and want to “approve” only what is to their liking.

Thus they try to play God by laying down their own conditions for “approval” while rejecting the Christ who after guaranteeing His Church on St Peter also guaranteed that “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

Thus they place themselves above Christ and His Church by making up their own.

 

[mattp0625]

Maybe, maybe not
The five solas perhaps were to combat things that were around when he lived that were not apostolic.
Augustine was indeed ''prima" . The only way one finds that not in context to is to misdefine SS. Just as there are 5 solas , SS does not negate the other authorities Augustine describes.

Sticking to Writ would sure help to clear the air on your challenged proposition, but as that is not the case…

Beg to differ. Luther and Ignatius are alike in real presence and bishops and neutral on any head bishop. Both did not like schism.

Ignatius also called for “guidance of the comforter”, and beyond reverence and submission to bishop is the primary submission to “the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all”.
And Francis authority from cardinals. Both Luther and Francis were ordained by successors. Neither were physically picked by Jesus, as the twelve apostles were .

Writ ( in Revelations) tells us of the approving of the twelve apostles and their reward as our foundation. Subsequent successors are quite conditional on approval of what they lay down for us.

Blessings

Luther was like Ignatius? Yikes. Ignatius went beyond not “liking” schism. He said anyone who follows the person who makes a schism in the church will not inherit the kingdom of God. You cannot sugar coat that.

Augustine had a high view of scripture. He never named scripture the sole authority nor rejected the authority of the magisterium. You cannot manufacture a basis for sola scriptura every time someone has a high view of scripture.

Luther was excommunicated.

The Catholic bishops in Norway were arrested and taken over by forces connected to the Lutheran movement. Johannes Bugenhagen was sent forth to create the new orders in Norway. Luther oversaw Bugenhagen’s promotion at the university. They were financed and supported by the leader of Denmark. The Lutheran apostolic succession is untrue by any standard. Hence, there is not presence in the Eucharist.

Luther rejected something that was not apostolic according to himself. Lutherans did not even understand indulgences (or lied about what they were).

 

[adrift]

Hi a,

Only if it is correct. So while I would agree that Writ is in context of the church authority, making equality now requires another debated element, that of equal infallibility.

It may be the lateness of the hour but I am not understanding.
Only if what is correct? The Church is infallible if that is what you mean???

Straw man, this what came first or what came second. What, because God so spoke to man , that thereafter that man is equal to what God would write, or not be equally subject to the writing ? If man can decide what God wrote so man can decide what was oral ?What God says or writes is so, regardless of what any man says. His word is unconditionally perfect, but our compliance is totally dependent, conditional.

Straw man means a misrepresentation of another’s position and then arguing that point as if that is what the other said. If I have misrepresented, I would be happy for a correction. However, your sentence is not a complete thought that I cannot make heads or tails what it means. My point was that the Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church produced Scripture. Your question is unclear to me.

We have been over this, Jesus did say go and preach orally , then go write.

Where does Jesus ever say to write anything down?

Jesus is Lord of both oral and writ. No but Peter and the twelve, and all succession, down to us, build by His Words

.
No disagreement.

Disagree. And disagree to the CC definition of “church”.

You disagree with the definition of Church. Since you say you disagree with my statement where than did Jesus say that He was building His Church on His words? The Only mention I remember of building His Church when He told Peter He was building His Church on him.

Either or ? It is both The apostles had authority. Their writings have authority. We do not have the apostles in the flesh, but we have their writings, to be used normatively by their successors. Pretty simple, even tradition in my opinion.

Blessings

Not what I said. It seems to me that SS gives authority only to Scripture when in truth Jesus gave authority only to His Church.

 

[adf417]

Where does Jesus ever say to write anything down?

Hi adrift. By the time you read this you will have probably gone to Mass and heard/read today’s second reading… Rev. 1:19.

Peace!!!

 

[susanlo]

Of course when Paul wrote this
Scripture is the Old Testament and what he was referring to.

Scripture is defined as such by the Church. Scripture is the result of the Church. The Church is not the result of Scripture.

The interpretation of Scripture is not infallible or inerrant.
Scripture is only rightfully interpreted by the Church.

True

This goes to interpretation.

But it is possible for wrongful interpretation this does not speak to what scripture is.

Of equal authority is the Church as this is what scripture states.

I assume you mean the authority of God, Jesus or Scripture. How does this define what Scripture is?

I do not make this claim but such writing as Protoevangelium of James,Infancy Gospel of Matthew,Syriac Infancy Gospel, the History of Joseph the Carpenter and the Life of John the Baptist are said by some to be Scripture that the early Church wrongfully eliminated.

I am not sure what you would accept as a writing but I would say the councils especially the First Council of Nicaea which developed the creed indeed by the authority of God.
Any dogma is an infallible doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation

It is good to dialogue and of course you knew we would disagree. One of the main flaws of SS is that it seems that it is believed that Scripture came before the Church and it has supreme authority over the Church. Jesus did not say go an write down but go and preach.** He did not say that His words are what His church was built on but Peter. No where in Scripture does it say what Scripture is but it does say what the Church is. ** In other words, SS gives Scripture the authority that Jesus gave His Church.

As a non-Catholic I have always understood the Bible to be written by God and not present by “the result of the church.” I realize we both know that God inspired the Bible and that there were humans writing it down. I just think God had this one specific task He completed infallibly through man. I had never thought that He gave the gift of infallible teaching to men and then had them write the Bible.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Paul says that “…all Scripture is God-breathed…” Previously, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes 2 Scriptures: “For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” This is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7
Also, in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. So the Bible itself quotes Luke and Paul’s letters as being Scripture. I understand that in the first 2-3 centuries there are writings by early theologians that quote most all of the books from the NT as they were accepted almost immediately by many.

There are many references to what scripture is in the Bible: Psalm 119:105 “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.” Psalm 119:130 “The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.” Jeremiah 23:29 “‘Is not my word like fire,’ declares the Lord, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’” Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…” and in John 17:17 Jesus says in his prayer: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” There are many more quotes about Scripture, but there are some good examples of what Scripture says that Scripture is.

(Matthew 16:18 is another whole topic and has many interpretations even from the beginning of exactly whether the rock was - Christ, Peter, or Peter’s confession of faith.) But my point is that I do think that there are clear references to the authority of Scripture within the Bible. I am not exactly sure where the references for Holy Tradition being God-inspired are, because I have not found that. Does the Catholic Church have a source that states that Holy Tradition is God-Inspired?

 

[jmcrae]

As a non-Catholic I have always understood the Bible to be written by God and not present by “the result of the church.” I realize we both know that God inspired the Bible and that there were humans writing it down. I just think God had this one specific task He completed infallibly through man. I had never thought that He gave the gift of infallible teaching to men and then had them write the Bible.

So then out of the thousands of books that were written about Jesus in the years between His resurrection and the death of John, how do we know that exactly those specific 27 books are Holy Scripture, and all of the rest of them are not?

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Paul says that “…all Scripture is God-breathed…” Previously, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes 2 Scriptures: “For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages.’” This is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7
Also, in 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. So the Bible itself quotes Luke and Paul’s letters as being Scripture. I understand that in the first 2-3 centuries there are writings by early theologians that quote most all of the books from the NT as they were accepted almost immediately by many.

Right. Those “many” are the Church. But St. Paul had to be quoting an oral tradition of Luke, because the Gospel of Luke wasn’t penned until after St. Paul had died.

There are many references to what scripture is in the Bible: Psalm 119:105 “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.” Psalm 119:130 “The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.” Jeremiah 23:29 “‘Is not my word like fire,’ declares the Lord, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’” Ephesians 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…” and in John 17:17 Jesus says in his prayer: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” There are many more quotes about Scripture, but there are some good examples of what Scripture says that Scripture is.

Remember, the Psalms were oral to begin with -and when they were first being sung almost nothing yet existed of the Old Testament in written form. The “Word” was heard - not read. Most of the Old Testament wasn’t penned until the Exile in Babylon - prior to that it was passed orally from generation to generation. It was only in the time of the Exile that any need arose to have it in writing.

(Matthew 16:18 is another whole topic and has many interpretations even from the beginning of exactly whether the rock was - Christ, Peter, or Peter’s confession of faith.) But my point is that I do think that there are clear references to the authority of Scripture within the Bible. I am not exactly sure where the references for Holy Tradition being God-inspired are, because I have not found that. Does the Catholic Church have a source that states that Holy Tradition is God-Inspired?

The simple fact that it came directly from Jesus seems to be enough for most people.

 

[adrift]

Hi adrift. By the time you read this you will have probably gone to Mass and heard/read today’s second reading… Rev. 1:19.

Peace!!!

Yep!

 

[benhur]

It may be the lateness of the hour but I am not understanding.
Only if what is correct? The Church is infallible if that is what you mean???

What I meant is that the church is of equal authority to Writ when she is right, when she is scriptural. It is conditional , whereas Writ is not. Another words the church is authoritative when she makes Godly pronouncements, when she indeed speaks the Word of God inerrantly.

Straw man means a misrepresentation of another’s position and then arguing that point as if that is what the other said. If I have misrepresented, I would be happy for a correction.

The straw is when you say we of SS say scripture (NT) came before the church. We do not. We understand the oral gospel was first , and thereafter Writ (NT). SS does not negate the authority of the church, and apostles, and prophets, and presbyters and council(s) for their obvious preexistence and scriptural description.

My point was that the Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church produced Scripture. Your question is unclear to me.

My question is do you not see the danger of when the church decides soley what is scripture that she can then also decide on the oral ? The more we place the giving/authenticating of God’s Word to God himself, and not "us’’, or my church, or your church the less conflict of interest we have, the less sectarian we become.

I would prefer to say God gave us scripture, that the church received scripture, and is subject to it, just as surely as she was subject to the apostles oral Word.

I will continue to give the analogy of Mary receiving the Incarnate One , and was not equal to Him, but subject to Him.

Where does Jesus ever say to write anything down?

My mistake, for sometimes me thinks the Three are One ? And of course , as adf nicely pointed out, there is Rev. 1.

You disagree with the definition of Church. Since you say you disagree with my statement where than did Jesus say that He was building His Church on His words? The Only mention I remember of building His Church when He told Peter He was building His Church on him.

Well the Lord addressed two and really three things: what the church is built upon, who and how he is building it ,and just what constitutes the church. SS is infallible in declaring the twelve apostles as our foundation, and that what is consequently laid on top will be judged, and that we today are the latest additional living stones being laid down.

Not what I said. It seems to me that SS gives authority only to Scripture when in truth Jesus gave authority only to His Church.

Again straw man. That would be like me saying the CC teaches authority only rests in the church (not scripture). She does not say that. SS does not say there is no other authority. SS says Writ is “distinctive”, "prima’’, or normative , for all other authorities. The CC says Writ is equal to Tradition and magisterium. (no distinction).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Some never learn because they ignore the truth and want to “approve” only what is to their liking.

Hi Abu,

Agree to this fleshly danger. The other danger is leaving the ‘approving’ to someone else.

Reminds me of miscalculating human dignity in the process. For example, some say “children should be seen but not heard”, or "women should remain silent in the churches’’.

The fact is Christ will demand of each us, individually, an answer. He asks ,“Whom do you say that I am ?”

On judgment day we will be alone before God save for one Mediator. We can not cite our parents "answer’ or their parents , or our tradition , or our magisterium etc. unless it is genuinely our own also.

We need our own answer, our own “oil”. We each have our own opinion, conscience, "answer’ and by grace may it comply to the Spirit’s Truth, not withstanding Writ, parents and presbyters and church magisteriums, and popes etc…

Thus they try to play God by laying down their own conditions for “approval” while rejecting the Christ who after guaranteeing His Church on St Peter also guaranteed that “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

And, behold,I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

Beautiful, is it not? We are *not *orphans for He is with and in us. The Vicar of Christ, the Holy Ghost.

Thus they place themselves above Christ and His Church by making up their own.

Agree to that fleshly danger. The other fleshly danger one is making other vicars , mediators for those specific roles, clouding the “I am”

Blessings

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;13799641]
The straw is when you say we of SS say scripture (NT) came before the church. We do not. We understand the oral gospel was first , and thereafter Writ (NT). SS does not negate the authority of the church, and apostles, and prophets, and presbyters and council(s) for their obvious preexistence and scriptural description.

That is interesting; I am finding the SS’s today have moved away from their staunch position of a SS that was used to reject the magisterium of the Church and Sacred Tradition.

What is astounding today, I hear SS’s softening it’s position against Sacred Tradition, Oral Apostolic Tradition which came before Holy Writ (NT).

What I find troubling with your comment benhur, deals with your accepting Apostolic Oral Sacred Tradition that debunks Sola Scriptura, when you say; “We understand the oral gospel was first”… “SS does not negate the authority of the church…” etc.

If what you say is true??? Then why is Protestantism with all it’s SS branches without a Valid Mass Liturgy, seven sacraments, especially Holy orders (apostolic succession) which are all revealed in Oral and written Tradition of the original Apostles, practiced unchanged today in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church’s.

From what we agree upon, Sola Scriptura lacks.

 

[alwayswill]

That is interesting; I am finding the SS’s today have moved away from their staunch position of a SS that was used to reject the magisterium of the Church and Sacred Tradition.

What is astounding today, I hear SS’s softening it’s position against Sacred Tradition, Oral Apostolic Tradition which came before Holy Writ (NT).

What I find troubling with your comment benhur, deals with your accepting Apostolic Oral Sacred Tradition that debunks Sola Scriptura, when you say; “We understand the oral gospel was first”… “SS does not negate the authority of the church…” etc.

If what you say is true??? Then why is Protestantism with all it’s SS branches without a Valid Mass Liturgy, seven sacraments, especially Holy orders (apostolic succession) which are all revealed in Oral and written Tradition of the original Apostles, practiced unchanged today in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church’s.

From what we agree upon, Sola Scriptura lacks.

This is the SS-practicing view:
I don’t expect you to agree: just letting you know what it is:

Scripture

• Every page , sentence , and written word of Scripture is God breathed
• The phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” or its equivalent, occurs more than 2,000 times in the Old Testament.
• Infallible and inerrant 100% of the time.
• Canon is closed

Magisterium and Tradition.

• There is not a page, a sentence, or a single word written from any ECFs, Magisteriums , councils, or Popes that is God Breathed. None!
• ECFs, Magisteriums, councils, or Popes have NEVER stated " Thus says the Lord…" or its equivalent, for something that is not already found in Scripture. Never
• Self claimed to be infallible 2 times, 20 times, 2000 times.??** No one knows!**
• Traditions can still be added and become dogma (ex; 5th Marian dogma?)

**And that is why scripture is alone:
**
Scripture is in a class by itself.
It is the highest pinnacle of authority:
God’s Word has no other equal.
It is above all other authorities.

It is not tied for first place with anything else.
It is not just one leg of a three legged stool.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount** authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truththe Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I guess the thread gravitated from other sources that are God-inspired (Tradition). Where and when did the Traditions originate. Were they always present in Christianity or did they develop over time like the “Happy Birthday” song mentioned previously.

The Sacred Tradition originated with Jesus and the Original Apostles.

For example; Trinity the word is not to be found in scripture, but the Trinity of faith is revealed by both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Centuries later after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Trinity becomes a doctrine of the faith “binding upon all believers” when the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ came under attack by heretics.

So it is with developed doctrines such as Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Filioque etc… became doctrine, when Peter (Pope) and the Church used the divine keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth, those man made ideologies which attacked the teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ.

These developed doctrines are rooted in sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, but bloom later, like the doctrine of the Trinity, in a time to protect the Apostolic Faith against false shepherds and heresies.

It goes without saying; The Crucifixion is not made a doctrine of the Church. Yet the crucifixion and resurrection is a professed doxology by Catholics. Islam today is challenging the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If?? Islam infects our Christian faith and our shepherds to doubt the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You can be assured, Peter (Pope) will once again, bind and loose (protect) the faithful by making the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ a doctrine binding all the faithful to one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith unchanged. Thereby separating the sheep, (that Jesus placed Peter in charge of) from the goats.

A Sola Scripturalist rejects and contradicts what comes from divine revelation that is not explicitly written, but is Apostolically handed down to us by Jesus and the apostles. For one example that is from Sacred Tradition is the Liturgy of the Mass, which mirrors the first century Judeo prayers, that is not found in scripture. But the apostles write about them.

Peace be with you

 

[benhur]

This is the SS-practicing view:
I don’t expect you to agree: just letting you know what it is:

Scripture

• Every page , sentence , and written word of Scripture is God breathed
• The phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” or its equivalent, occurs more than 2,000 times in the Old Testament.
• Infallible and inerrant 100% of the time.
• Canon is closed

Magisterium and Tradition.

• There is not a page, a sentence, or a single word written from any ECFs, Magisteriums , councils, or Popes that is God Breathed. None!
• ECFs, Magisteriums, councils, or Popes have NEVER stated " Thus says the Lord…" or its equivalent, for something that is not already found in Scripture. Never
• Self claimed to be infallible 2 times, 20 times, 2000 times.??** No one knows!**
• Traditions can still be added and become dogma (ex; 5th Marian dogma?)

**And that is why scripture is alone:
**
Scripture is in a class by itself.
It is the highest pinnacle of authority:
God’s Word has no other equal.
It is above all other authorities.

It is not tied for first place with anything else.
It is not just one leg of a three legged stool.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount** authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truththe Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

Hi a,

And this also from Agustine:

" there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments…
Such writings (patristic) are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe… the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true’’

Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 11:5)

Blessings

 

[benhur]

That is interesting; I am finding the SS’s today have moved away from their staunch position of a SS that was used to reject the magisterium of the Church and Sacred Tradition.

Hi G,

Not sure of any moving away. Not sure that Luther rejected magisterium or Tradtion, save as being infallible or normative as Writ.

What I find troubling with your comment benhur, deals with your accepting Apostolic Oral Sacred Tradition that debunks Sola Scriptura, when you say; “We understand the oral gospel was first”… “SS does not negate the authority of the church…” etc

Again ,what is apostolic ? Hearsay is OK but problematic (conditional) where Writ is not in its origin.

What God later put to Writ (OT or NT) did not debunk what was oral, or the prophets that came before or after.

That is why I like Barnabus with , “Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as have been written”

Barnabus does not do away with oral or apostolic foundation/authority. Of course he himself spoke and wrote with authority

If what you say is true??? Then why is Protestantism with all it’s SS branches without a Valid Mass Liturgy, seven sacraments, especially Holy orders (apostolic succession) which are all revealed in Oral and written Tradition of the original Apostles, practiced unchanged today in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church’s.

Me thinks,“thou art careful and troubled about many things:but few things are needed–or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better,”

We go from the few things of Nicea to the many of Trent and further divide brethren.

Do we not both have what is "better’’ ? If one is in Christ they are in His Church, His Body, the Bride, the “Better”, the brethren.

You mention much from tradition above, and evolving at that . It is fine to be just "apostolic’’ also. We do have eucharist, ordination, sacraments/rites. Trouble yourself not. (That goes for me also. I love to be dogmatic, legalistic, Phariseeical, right, for others to be conformist-to me).

Blessings

 

[Abu]

alwayswill #94
Magisterium and Tradition.
•There is not a page, a sentence, or a single word written from any ECFs, Magisteriums , councils, or Popes that is God Breathed. None!
•ECFs, Magisteriums, councils, or Popes have NEVER stated " Thus says the Lord…" or its equivalent, for something that is not already found in Scripture. Never
•Self claimed to be infallible 2 times, 20 times, 2000 times.?? No one knows!
•Traditions can still be added and become dogma (ex; 5th Marian dogma?)

And that is why scripture is alone:
Scripture is in a class by itself.
It is the highest pinnacle of authority:
God’s Word has no other equal.
It is above all other authorities.

False, in that the Christ wrote nothing, and established His Church on St Peter and his successors who then guaranteed the books that She defined are the inspired Word of God through Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio (EWTN) on Aug-20-2010
Saint Jerome translated the ancient Greek and Hebrew Old Testment (46 books) and the Greek New Testament (27 books) into Latin and combined them into the first one volume set of Sacred Scriptures called “the Bible”.

Truth seekers however will find that in those Sacred Scriptures guaranteed by the Christ’s Catholic Church:
**You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
**“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

Thus very clearly then has Christ established His Magisterium (teaching authority) in St Peter (His first Pope) and his successors who proclaim the truths of faith and morals in dogma and doctrine.

Of course discarding Christ’s specific teaching leads to the errors cited.
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).
And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 20).

Disregarding what the Sacred Scriptures teach, as guaranteed by Christ’s Catholic Church to be the Word of God, leads to all sorts of errors and confusion.

 

[susanlo]

So then out of the thousands of books that were written about Jesus in the years between His resurrection and the death of John, how do we know that exactly those specific 27 books are Holy Scripture, and all of the rest of them are not?

Because God guided the early Christian leaders. Because they were established to be true and accurate by firsthand witnesses. Because they were written by apostles and those who were associates of the apostles. Because the writers claimed that the contents were inspired by God. I am not an expert and I am sure there is a better answer for this.
I give the credit of the infallible Bible to an infallible God who was inspired Scripture through men. I don’t think man has to be infallible for God to create an infallible Bible through man. I think that is where our view is different.

Right. Those “many” are the Church. But St. Paul had to be quoting an oral tradition of Luke, because the Gospel of Luke wasn’t penned until after St. Paul had died.

Remember, the Psalms were oral to begin with -and when they were first being sung almost nothing yet existed of the Old Testament in written form. The “Word” was heard - not read. Most of the Old Testament wasn’t penned until the Exile in Babylon - prior to that it was passed orally from generation to generation. It was only in the time of the Exile that any need arose to have it in writing.

Yes, I believe that many people had memorized much of the Hebrew Tanakh. Scrolls were rare at the time. I don’t think that oral Scriptures would be equal to other oral teachings, though. Is that what you were meaning? Why were some teachings written down in the first century and others not? I would think God capable of having the essential teachings written down.

The simple fact that it came directly from Jesus seems to be enough for most people.

I don’t have concerns about Jesus as a source. I have concerns about the centuries of oral transmission. (We see how fast rumors going through a community can become distorted in just 1 week). I believe that God inspired infallible Scripture. This idea that man teaches infallibly and has the ability to maintain oral teachings infallibly for centuries with no written source of such teaching is something that I have only recently heard of.