SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[jmcrae]

Stop the press!!

1st: the books from Moses were written about 1400 BC
Secondly : the oral traditions of the Hebrews were a complete mess: do you know who Lilith is?
According the oral tradition: she was Adams first wife: made from Adam’ tail:

It was the written word that “overwrote” the errors of oral traditions.

I am perfectly certain that the devout Jews were well aware that Lilith was a fabrication.

It remains that without at least some oral tradition it is impossible to know what books comprise the Scriptures.

 

[clem456]

It is faith.

And your faith is really in…?

God (a person) created the earth. God formed living things and mankind (persons). God delivered the Israelites (persons) out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea. He put Jonah (a person) in a big fish for 3 days and then brought him out. His son Jesus (a person) healed the sick and brought (people) back to life. He died and rose to life in 3 days. I had never considered that a God this powerful would be incapable of creating a Bible for believers.

God did not “create” a bible, he became a person. You just said so by the name of Jesus. Those persons he lived with wrote the bible out of their personal experiences, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

My faith has never been in the church getting the Bible right. My faith has been that God - through his disciples - got the Bible right. I had never considered that because the apostles and disciples produced the infallible scriptures, that the future church for thousand of years would be incapable of teaching error. I had never taken it that far.

I’m not sure why people worry so much about proving infallibility.
Just accept that you are part of a continuous community, and the rest falls into line. It takes a tremendous amount of humility and trust to subject one’s self to the guidance and authority of others.
But what other way is there? Would you be saved purely as an individual, or part of a community?
Jesus never ever once uttered a word about individuals being saved through an exclusive relationship with the book. That in fact is the anti Gospel that Christ comes to save us from.
His message is one of a unified community of persons. Just like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, in one community.

 

[jmcrae]

It is faith. God created the earth. God formed living things and mankind. God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea. He put Jonah in a big fish for 3 days and then brought him out. His son Jesus healed the sick and brought people back to life. He died and rose to life in 3 days. I had never considered that a God this powerful would be incapable of creating a Bible for believers.

My faith has never been in the church getting the Bible right. My faith has been that God - through his disciples - got the Bible right. I had never considered that because the apostles and disciples produced the infallible scriptures, that the future church for thousand of years would be incapable of teaching error. I had never taken it that far.

If the Church is capable of teaching error, then it is capable of giving you the wrong Bible. It is also capable of writing down the wrong things in the Books of the New Testament (all of which were written by Catholic Church leaders).

 

[SyroMalankara]

Because something rests upon you (truth) does not make equal to it. There is a distinction. When the Corinthian church held and read Paul’s letter , they did not say “we have equal authority as this theopneustos Writ”

Wait… what? The Corinthian Church did not hold up themselves up as equal to St. Paul’s letter because of St. Paul, not the letter. The Apostle-Bishop’s authority is what had it authoritative - almost as if there was some scandal at my parish that my bishop addressed. The priest would read it from the same place he gives his Gospel homily.

Again SS holds that that distinctive Apostolic/ Writ authority is for the church and in context of their rule of faith. It is their primary source of divine revelation thereafter.

That seems like a Semi-SS position, whereas some I’ve heard hold to a Hard-SS position (mostly non-denominationals, evangelicals, and others). However to state that SS is “primary” seems like a word-game, since in practice, the church authorities (which ever church) can justify their actions/decision one way or the other and can use any verse that fits their cause.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If the Church is capable of teaching error, then it is capable of giving you the wrong Bible. It is also capable of writing down the wrong things in the Books of the New Testament (all of which were written by Catholic Church leaders).

You win the internets today!!!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Wait… what? The Corinthian Church did not hold up themselves up as equal to St. Paul’s letter because of St. Paul, not the letter. The Apostle-Bishop’s authority is what had it authoritative - almost as if there was some scandal at my parish that my bishop addressed. The priest would read it from the same place he gives his Gospel homily.
That seems like a Semi-SS position, whereas some I’ve heard hold to a Hard-SS position (mostly non-denominationals, evangelicals, and others). However to state that SS is “primary” seems like a word-game, since in practice, the church authorities (which ever church) can justify their actions/decision one way or the other and can use any verse that fits their cause.

Prima scriptura. Practiced by Anglicans and maybe some Lutherans as well.

 

[jmcrae]

Prima scriptura. Practiced by Anglicans and maybe some Lutherans as well.

When I was Protestant I never heard of any of those terms. We read the Bible because we thought it was all we had. We never wondered where it came from.

 

[susanlo]

If the Church is capable of teaching error, then it is capable of giving you the wrong Bible. It is also capable of writing down the wrong things in the Books of the New Testament (all of which were written by Catholic Church leaders).

God is the author of the Bible. I thought that Catholics believed that too. God is incapable of teaching error.

What other God-breathed documents are not in the Bible?

There is a difference between what God says and what the church says.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

When I was Protestant I never heard of any of those terms. We read the Bible because we thought it was all we had. We never wondered where it came from.

Me too, well as non-denominational. Then went Anglican and saw them quoting the book of Wisdom and Church fathers and incorporating the Didache into Church practice, etc

 

[jmcrae]

God is the author of the Bible. I thought that Catholics believed that too. God is incapable of teaching error.

We do. We know this because the Church tells us this. God doesn’t come down and tell me that He inspired the Bible. I learn that from the Church.

What other God-breathed documents are not in the Bible?

The Church placed all of the God-breathed documents into the Bible. They did this under the authority of Pope St. Innocent I in about 405 AD. St. Jerome then translated them all into a common language that everyone could read, and it began to be copied in monasteries so that every Catholic Church could have one.

There is a difference between what God says and what the church says.

Matthew 16:18-19.

 

[SyroMalankara]

God is the author of the Bible. I thought that Catholics believed that too. God is incapable of teaching error.

Correct

What other God-breathed documents are not in the Bible?

Ancient Liturgies, the earliest prayers of the Church, etc. You will have to define Bible as well, as some Christian Churches (Ethiopian Orthodox, for example) include the 1st Letter of Pope St. Clement as part of the New Testament canon.

There is a difference between what God says and what the church says.

Who is capable of telling this apart, unless God miraculously appeared to you, and you believe it, are not having mental episode and were not deceived? How could you tell?

 

[rcwitness]

But you neglect the fact that the fathers refer to Peters confession of faith ( the gospel ) as the foundation

Post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13810383&postcount=258

 

[benhur]

Greetings, Ben.

I’ve read that there were nearly 300 documents or books in the early church all debated as to whether or not they were inspired.

So many of the books were disputed to include, James, Jude, John’s epistles, Hebrews and Revelation and of course the 7 OT books protestants do not consider inspired.

To give us a idea of what was happening in the early church, we can look at the earliest document we have with a NT book listing called the Muratorian fragment.

And of course that dates to 170-200AD and it is missing NT books such as John’s epistles yet includes books we now consider gnostic such as the Apocalypse of Peter.

Thankfully we had a authoritative church and referee in Pope Damasus to clear up any confusion. After 382 AD the disputes finally ended for all intents and purposes, until Luther.

yes but Eiusebius also had in his lists the spurious books , the forgeries , just as we do today.

yes He also knew of the disputed books , just as Jerome did ,and Luther etc.

Blessings

 

[alwayswill]

The Church had the Apostles. And the first converts devoted themselves to their Teaching. By the time the last Apostle John died, the Church had the Scriptures. Though they we not settled into a canon. And that is absolutely necessary for SS!

Sola Scriptura is correct because of what Scripture is:
not becuase of what is Scripture

 

[rcwitness]

Sola Scriptura is correct because of what Scripture is:
not becuase of what is Scripture

SS is dependant on both the witness of tradition and the authority of the Church to confirm the “body” of Scripture.

 

[alwayswill]

SS is dependant on both the witness of tradition and the authority of the Church to confirm the “body” of Scripture.

Scripture carries the same authority as God speaking from His throne.
There is no authority higher than Scripture.

I would say the the same thing about Scripture whether it is the Chronicles of Adam or Third Corinthians,

I would say the the same thing about Scripture if the only eyes to see Revelation were John’s.

I would say the the same thing about Scripture about the book of Isaiah the moment it was written…

Writings breathed out by God are NOT dependent on anyone’s tradition or authority to be Scripture.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Scripture carries the same authority as God speaking from His throne.
There is no authority higher than Scripture.

I would say the the same thing about Scripture whether it is the Chronicles of Adam or Third Corinthians,

I would say the the same thing about Scripture if the only eyes to see Revelation were John’s.

I would say the the same thing about Scripture for the book of Isaiah the moment it was written…

Writings breathed out by God are NOT dependent on anyone’s tradition or authority to be Scripture.

Then you would be the arbiter and authority on what is Scripture. Not Scripture itself, not the Church, just you. And the next person over would be his own authority to say what he thinks is Scripture, whether or not you agree.

And this is what God intends?

 

[rcwitness]

Writings breathed out by God are NOT dependent on anyone’s tradition or authority to be Scripture.

You can say that now that you have a bible in your hands. Assigning final authority to Scripture doesn’t justify diminishing the role Apostolic Tradition, the fathers, and Church authority have in the life of the Church. Neither does it guarantee orthodox interpretation of all of Scripture. In fact it guarantees heterodoxy in one area or another.

 

[alwayswill]

Then you would be the arbiter and authority on what is Scripture. Not Scripture itself, not the Church, just you. And the next person over would be his own authority to say what he thinks is Scripture, whether or not you agree.

And this is what God intends?

nope: that conclusion does come from my statements

The Church CANNOT grant authority to Scripture any mmore than I can

 

[alwayswill]

You can say that now that you have a bible in your hands. Assigning final authority to Scripture doesn’t justify diminishing the role Apostolic Tradition, the fathers, and Church authority have in the life of the Church. Neither does it guarantee orthodox interpretation of all of Scripture. In fact it guarantees heterodoxy in one area or another.

And you Church can’t guarantee that anyone interprets infallible or authoritative Church teachings correctly.