The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter IHeartAquinas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SyCarl said:
Which table of contents is correct? The Catholic Church uses one, Protestant Churches use another, Orthodox another again and churches like the Ethiopian Tewahedo CDhurch yet another.
Click to expand...
Let’s just take the table of contents that you use, Carl.

You only know it’s inspired because of the authority outside of Scripture. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Let’s just take the table of contents that you use, Carl.

You only know it’s inspired because of the authority outside of Scripture. 🤷
Click to expand...
Bed is calling me now. I will try to reply another time.

Good night and God bless.
 
SyCarl said:
No, the Holy Spirit does not create confusion but men can. Did God want Adam to fall? Did God want Israel to disobey? No, but they did. In the same way men can introduce error in the Church particulairly when they try to define things as required for belief that are beyond our limited capacity to comprehend. We can never fully understand God and His ways since we are finite and He is infinite.
Click to expand...
According to Calvinist doctrine, the elect are guaranteed to persevere in true faith by Christ. If you have admitted the elect can err from the true faith, you are not a Presbyterian.
 
SyCarl said:
No, the Holy Spirit does not create confusion but men can. Did God want Adam to fall? Did God want Israel to disobey? No, but they did. In the same way men can introduce error in the Church particulairly when they try to define things as required for belief that are beyond our limited capacity to comprehend. We can never fully understand God and His ways since we are finite and He is infinite.
Click to expand...
According to Calvinist doctrine, the elect are guaranteed to persevere in true faith by Christ. If you have admitted the elect can err from the true faith, you are not a Presbyterian after all. 🙂

But anyway, your response assumes that the faith is defined and added on to by men. It isn’t. The Catholic Faith is simply what Jesus taught, nothing more, nothing less. The Immaculate Conception is taught in Scripture (look a few posts up), so if the Immaculate Conception is “beyond our limited capacity to understand,” so much for the Bible.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t believe you read my post, Carl.

It has been the constant teaching of the Church that Mary was conceived without sin.

At any rate, the assertion that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the dogma of the IC is inaccurate. 🤷
Click to expand...
He did conclude that Mary was born with sin, but also said all of his writings were subject to the authority of the Church. So if St Thomas Aquinas was alive today, he would correct his own teachings if they were not in line with the Church.
 
Gallowglasser said:
He did conclude that Mary was born with sin, but also said all of his writings were subject to the authority of the Church. So if St Thomas Aquinas was alive today, he would correct his own teachings if they were not in line with the Church.
Click to expand...
And as I’ve said, he didn’t know that the Immaculate Conception was a dogma at the time. That doesn’t meant that it wasn’t a dogma anymore than the New World didn’t exist before 1492.
 
Gallowglasser said:
He did conclude that Mary was born with sin, but also said all of his writings were subject to the authority of the Church. So if St Thomas Aquinas was alive today, he would correct his own teachings if they were not in line with the Church.
Click to expand...
He could not understand the concept of an unredeemed immaculate conception. That is, a being that did not require a savior.

That is, he is in complete agreement with Catholic teaching! For Mary did require a savior.
 
Cat_Herder said:
If you don’t want to pick up the Bible for fear of circular argumentation, we can look at the Church Fathers, or at the direct evidence–not one doctrine changed, ever.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure this is accurate. Bible evidence seems to be against your understanding.
 
SyCarl said:
I am merely saying that the Church can’t prove its authority without using the Bible. Yet we can’t know the Bible until we know the Church has authority.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There’s no Biblical proof the CC is the church, the one and only church, that has the authority the CC says it has. There’s no proof all the authority it takes is exactly the authority given.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, if it doesn’t, then you ought never ever ever quote a single verse of Scripture again. For the only reason you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired is

because

the

CC

told you so. 🤷
Click to expand...
We’ve had this discussion before and I’ve always pointed out you’re giving the CC the job of the Holy Spirit and in doing so, taking the glory from the Holy Spirit and giving it to the CC.

Joh 5:31 "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.

If Jesus said this about Himself, why do some churches bear witness to themselves?
 
SyCarl said:
This is sophistry. You are assuming that because some things in the Bible are historically accurate that this means we can believe it in everything it says. I can say that some things in Homer’s Illiad can be shown to true. Does that mean that mean everything in the Illiad is true? Of course not.

Only by previously determining that everything in the Bible is true can it be used to establish the authority of the Church. And even in that case, you must interpret what the Bible says to come to the conclusion that the Church has the authority it claims. You must rely on your private interpretaion before you can say certain passages show an infallible Church.
Click to expand...
The best place to start, IMO, is with the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus was raised from the dead and is God in the flesh (the only Human to be able to make this claim) other things fall into place quite nicely.

I believe you are correct in questioning what Church, if any given ‘denomination’ (including the CC) can claim the authority. The question aslo arises, authority to do what?
 
PRmerger said:
Then, again, you ought never quote a single verse of the Bible, Carl. For how do you know that the Church, which in your estimation is fallible, got it right when it included Revelation as theopneustos and excluded the Didache?

I’m just sayin’…🤷
Click to expand...
The HOLY SPIRIT, that’s how. The CC or the church Jesus founded is NOT the Holy Spirit thus not infallible.

Sy, believe your Bible.
 
PRmerger said:
Alrighty, then, Carl!

Challenge to you here:

You tell us whether each of these verses is inspired, and how you know this:

Remember, one cannot beg the question!

• All generations shall call me blessed!
• O you who believe! Remember God’s favor to you when there came against you forces, so We sent against them a strong wind and forces which you did not see, and God is Ever- Seeing what you do.
• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
• Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.
• Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
• And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.
Click to expand...
  1. It would be good if you gave the reference for us to check them out.
  2. If in fact they are accurate ‘cut and paste’ from a good translation, they are great words from our Great God.
  3. The Holy Spirit may not interpret them as you do… OR me either.
 
SyCarl said:
I have faith that Bible is accurate. You have faith that the Church is infallible. Neither of us can our belief if true. Neither of us can prove our interpretation of the relevant passages is true. We can only rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Good points.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t believe I’ve cited any “relevant passages” of Scripture at all. :confused:

I am interested in your thoughts on how you know whether verses, chapters, books, letters of early Christians are theopneustos?
Click to expand...
Putting chapter and verse in place was a brilliant tool to help make it easier to reference the Bible. Makes it easier too study.
 
PRmerger said:
Even as you typed that I am certain you saw the absurdity of that comment, Carl :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
I’m sure Sy meant that, by inspired, the verses specific words were put there by the Holy Spirit for a reason (“doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” - sometimes instruction in righteousness is given by showing unrighteousness, not to follow but to avoid).
 
PRmerger said:
He could not understand the concept of an unredeemed immaculate conception. That is, a being that did not require a savior.

That is, he is in complete agreement with Catholic teaching! For Mary did require a savior.
Click to expand...
Was Mary born with a sin nature or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top