The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Point understood. But look at yourself MARIA, you give hope for us all. I was born Catholic, but call myself a convert anyways. Left and couldnt find anything better. I had to come back.

Man, I better start praying for Luther then, He is gonna need it.
 
40.png
RMP:
Is this book online, or at the book store? Tell me where i can find it. I would be happy to read it…
You can purchase a copy of Early Christian Doctrines here:

search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Xz6vR5EA2R&isbn=006064334X&itm=1
Transubstantiation is our best guess at this time.
The HOW is it or WHEN it becomes the real presense has differing points of view of the form. Invoking the words, intention of priest, that kind of thing.
Some fathers held views that are incompatible with transubstantiation, so the questions about how to determine which father faithfully handed down the oral tradition are valid. I don’t think I missed your point.
I will ask you one more question, do you think oral tradition exists outside of scripture? I am not asking what it is or what does it mean, or what are examples of it specifically, only DOES ORAL Tradition exist outside of scripture? yes or no.
From what I’ve heard here and elsewhere, the answer is yes.
Your conclusion may be that Oral tradition is not required any more since we have scripture. The one holy catholic and apostolic church declares differently. So this leads us back to authority, not to the existance of present day ORAL TRADITION.
This conclusion has already been arrived at.

~Matt
 
grrrrr.
The point is not Transubstantiation!
The point is a belief in the REAL PRESENSE. ORAL and written Tradition have protected the church from teaching error on faith and morals. The real presense is a matter of faith.

There is NO Tradition in the Catholic church of teaching the faithful to NOT believe in the REAL presense! Any ideas challenging the REAL presense were rejected and declared heresy.
If you dont believe me, then I ask you when did the Catholic church ever teach the eucharist did not have Christ’s REAL PRESENSE?

Transubstatiation is our best guess of HOW this occurs.
Am I still not making my point?:banghead:

Just curious, do you believe in the real presense of the eucharist? yes or no.
 
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith. bless you all:)
 
Hi Matt!

Here’s your quote to RMP above…

“Some fathers held views that are incompatible with transubstantiation, so the questions about how to determine which father faithfully handed down the oral tradition are valid. I don’t think I missed your point.”

Im just trying to clear up RMP’s response to you on this. Who snuck in the word transubstantion into this discussion on the Real Presence? It is unnecessary and confusing. They are not interchangeable terms. Real Presence refers to an oral tradition of the actual, literal, inseparable(ie real, as in “my flesh is real food”) presence of Christ in the eucharist. Im interested to see an ECF speaking differently as you suggest. Transubstantiation is a separate entity - it is simply a word that was created to attempt to clarify the mechanism of action that occurs during consecration of the host, and is derived from the tradition of Real Presence. Give me one ECF speaking of a “symbolic” eucharist and I will fold my hand.

Phil
 
Since we now both agree that Oral tradition exists outside of scripture…We can conclude - scripture alone is false doctrine.

But this does not help us decide WHAT Oral tradition actually and infallably means yet. I guess we will need another Great eucumenical council to decide that…Until then we can only be assured that holy spirit will guide the church. Jesus promised this himself.
 
40.png
RMP:
Am I still not making my point?:banghead:
You still don’t understand my position, which is why communication has broken down. The original point, which has already been answered, was that, with varying, incompatible views on the eucharist, how do we know which father passed down the correct view of the real presence? When you then respond by ignoring this point, discussing a vague idea of a real presence, it’s going to be difficult for us to understand one another.
Just curious, do you believe in the real presense of the eucharist? yes or no.
I believe in a type of real presence. It really isn’t a yes or no question.

~Matt
 
40.png
Philthy:
Who snuck in the word transubstantion into this discussion on the Real Presence? It is unnecessary and confusing. They are not interchangeable terms.
No one stated that the terms are interchangable. It was part of the point of different interpretations of the real presence, a point that was made when RMP asked me where fathers differed on their views of the real presence.

I’ve also explained my position on this matter to RMP again, so I refer you to those comments. I understand what RMP is saying. The problem is that he does not understand what I have written.
Give me one ECF speaking of a “symbolic” eucharist and I will fold my hand.
I suggested a source to RMP earlier. I’d recommend the same source to you.

~Matt
 
40.png
RMP:
Since we now both agree that Oral tradition exists outside of scripture…We can conclude - scripture alone is false doctrine.
I suspect that you do not understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What books, articles or other written material have you read on the subject? Could you summarize your understanding of the doctrine and its view on oral tradition?
But this does not help us decide WHAT Oral tradition actually and infallably means yet. I guess we will need another Great eucumenical council to decide that…
I look forward to when the Catholic Church does this. It would make for testing the existence of and following the oral word much easier.

~Matt
 
I suspect that you do not understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura** *

Until protestants can agree what the doctrine means, I will have to wait and see. Unless you have a protestant Tradition you can refer me to that I may judge for myself.
But anyways off the top of my simple mind. Here goes-

sola scriptura- an acronym. it means by scripture alone. Meaning or implying- The bible is the inerrant word of god, and IT (Scripture) alone is the only infallable, true authority of Gods revelation to us in the world and our means to salvation, through Jesus Christ. It implys that it alone is sufficient for salvation. All I have to do is read it, understand it, absorb it and submit to it, literally. Oh, and I dont need anyone else to show me how to interpret it. I can do that myself, because the spirit will guide me and perserve me from error. I cannot trust man or mans history because men make mistakes, men are fallable beings. Nothing can be added or taking away from it…oops and to specifically answer…Oral traditon is fully contained in the written scripture, almost forgot that.

I like to view it as my own personal salvation instructional kit. solo-kit-ura

Do you still have suspicions?
That is my best guess without getting into the more formal definitions from books.
 
I believe in a type of real presence. It really isn’t a yes or no question.
My question was,
I asked yes or no.
I guess when it comes to faith you could say that also. You think you have a type of faith…Is that sufficient? I always thought you were saved or you were not. There is no types.
But I will take it as a yes. You believe the eucharist is the flesh and blood of our lord. Am I correct? yes or no.
Is this question tough for you? Many disciples walked away when they heard this from Jesus himself.

Of all the doctrines of the Catholic church, the Eucharist is most important. Our faith depends on this point. basically religion is a belief in the unseen. All these conversations on this forum bring our minds together in a spiritual, but mental way. ONLY by the Eucharist are we bound together in a physical way. GOD felt the redemptive needs of man had to be resolved in a spiritual and physical way. Hence the incarnation. The word made flesh. Catholics believe that has never changed. The eucharist is the means by which our bodies, not just our minds or spirit, become incorruptable, pleasing, and one in being with our lord Jesus Christ, TODAY. This is our WORSHIP of him.We accept him into our mind and BODY. Jesus requires the faithful to CHEW, SUCK, and MASTACATE his very own flesh and blood or we have no life in us. He wasnt refering to eating a book. God gives himself to us. What more can he give?

I like to think of it as the last supper…we will ever need.:love:
 
40.png
RMP:
Until protestants can agree what the doctrine means, I will have to wait and see.
There are only two functional definitions of Sola Scriptura that are forwarded by Protestants. Those that forward their respective definitions are mostly agreed on what the doctrine entails.
That is my best guess without getting into the more formal definitions from books.
Would you mind citing some works that agree with your definition of Sola Scriptura? There are only two places I have read this definition–Catholic apologetics and a book discussing (and rejecting) the fundamentalist Protestant position on Sola Scriptura, a position which is not an accurate respresentation of the classical doctrine found in many churches today.

I ask again, What books, articles or other written material have you read on the subject?

~Matt
 
40.png
RMP:
But I will take it as a yes. You believe the eucharist is the flesh and blood of our lord. Am I correct? yes or no.
Since it is unclear as to what you mean by “flesh and blood of our lord,” I cannot answer.

Also, this is not quite relevant to the topics of this thread. If you want to continue this part of our conversation, I ask that you would either PM me or start a new thread.

~Matt
 
Let me see. My definition for sola scripture is not good enough for you. (I did not define material and formal cause of justification, pointless, or the essentialness of this doctrine to the Faithful gospel, cmon) Sola scriptura and sola fide go hand and hand. Please enlighten me.
I confess, I have no idea what sola scriptura means. Because I think it is fantasy. In my own life, none of sola scriptures essential truths have any REAL relavence to my daily life. “All I need is my Faith, all I need is to read the book.” Fantasy.

You want me to define flesh and blood. You have no idea what this means?
This is the heresy of subjectivism, reletavism. Im supprised we are even able to communnicate.
“This is my Body… this is my Blood” - Jesus Christ defined it himself.

Books. Why does that matter. I thought this thread was about scripture alone. There are no other books.

but usually I just read the works of the protestors themselves, Why read a book written about Luther (an interpretation) when you can find the writings FROM Luther himself. This goes for Calvin, Wesley, Zwigly, James white, Jimmy Swaggart, and all the rest. But I’d rather read the writtings of Ignatius, Clement, Eusebius, John Paul II and all the other Catholic church fathers.

By the way, so your answer really was NO. You dont believe in the real presence? canabolism! “And when they heard this, many disciples walked away”

Good luck Matt, But you are not, as the Catecism says, “invincibly ignorant” anymore.

Sincerely, I have enjoyed this conversation with you, peace.
 
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

It’s not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John’s Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a “Bible Christian” know the Bible is the Word of God?

If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non- Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It’s doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.

Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and “apostolic” writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the “Shepherd” of Hermas, St. Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Catholic Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.

But, according to Protestants’ the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 90 A.D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians. The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority, sola scriptura, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is “useful” (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the Bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an “intolerable paradox.” :blessyou:
 
40.png
RMP:
I confess, I have no idea what sola scriptura means.
Earlier you said, “That is my best guess without getting into the more formal definitions from books.” Now you “confess” that you have “no idea what sola scriptura means.” Do you mean you actually don’t know of any formal definitions from books?
Books. Why does that matter. I thought this thread was about scripture alone. There are no other books.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny the usefulness of books. You are losing credibility in being able to properly represent the classical position of Sola Scriptura.

Besides, the reference to books was about which works you’ve read. At your earliest convience, I would still like to know what written material you’ve read on Sola Scriptura, books or otherwise. It would help me to understand what perspective you’re coming from. I suspect you’ve only read Catholic misrepresentations of the doctrine.
but usually I just read the works of the protestors themselves, Why read a book written about Luther (an interpretation) when you can find the writings FROM Luther himself. This goes for Calvin, Wesley, Zwigly, James white, Jimmy Swaggart, and all the rest.
If you’ve read the works of Luther, Calvin, etc. how can you honestly forward this understanding of Sola Scriptura? Would you mind demonstrating from the Reformers’ works that they hold to your definition of the doctrine?

~Matt
 
Now you “confess” that you have “no idea what sola scriptura means.” Do you mean you actually don’t know of any formal definitions from books?
No, I was being polite. Since you refused my definition, I was giving you an opportunity to present it to me. How about FAITH ALONE, R.C.Sproul. he seems most determined to reject any Catholics beliefs, or even his protestant bretheren I might say. Although he never formally defines it, as “Webster” would. He only explains its “essence”, and neccessity. that was my reference of what I could recall reading.
*
Sola Scriptura
doesn’t deny the usefulness of books. You are losing credibility in being able to properly represent the classical position of Sola Scriptura.***
Usefulness, No, but it doesnt affirm it either. But sola scriptura itself does imply that outside references have no authority in the matter. Therefore you may be losing your credibility, along with sola scriptura.
I suspect you’ve only read Catholic misrepresentations of the doctrine.
I thought I answered that already, I usually look for their writings in english, wether by the net or library. I only have a few books myself. Authors Tim Layhe, Grant Jefferies, R.C. Sproul, Ed Young that show forth SOLA acriptura.
If you’ve read the works of Luther, Calvin, etc. how can you honestly forward this understanding of Sola Scriptura? Would you mind demonstrating from the Reformers’ works that they hold to your definition of the doctrine?
Ill leave that demonstration up to you since Sola Scriptura’s definition seems to keep evolving.
But seriously, what did I miss or leave out?
 
40.png
RMP:
Usefulness, No, but it doesnt affirm it either. But sola scriptura itself does imply that outside references have no authority in the matter. Therefore you may be losing your credibility, along with sola scriptura.
My credibility is not in question. You’re the one who claims to be representing the doctrine properly and implying that this understanding comes from a reading of Protestant works.

Sola Scriptura does not “imply” that other references have “no authority.” Keith Mathison, in The Shape of Sola Scriptura (publication information upon request) writes on the definition of Sola Scriptura as known by the Reformers (and held by Protestants who follow them today):

“Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church…” (p. 256).

Mathison continues by expounding on this definition in much greater detail. Of particular relevance to your definition and some of your responses in this thread, he writes:

“It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether…There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature” (p. 260).
I thought I answered that already, I usually look for their writings in english, wether by the net or library. I only have a few books myself. Authors Tim Layhe, Grant Jefferies, R.C. Sproul, Ed Young that show forth SOLA acriptura.
Since you’ve now produced a list of some written material, will you now demonstrate from their texts that they present the same definition you’ve forwarded in this thread?
Ill leave that demonstration up to you since Sola Scriptura’s definition seems to keep evolving.
But seriously, what did I miss or leave out?
It’s not “evolving.” If you’ve read material from the Reformers themselves, how can you honestly claim this when there are many Protestants who hold to what the Reformers taught on the subject? Some Protestants don’t follow the doctrine correctly, but I wouldn’t call them true Protestants (just like you wouldn’t call people who don’t follow Catholic doctrines true Catholics).

Significant portions of the definition you wrote I have not seen forwarded by the some of the authors you have referenced (which is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that your understanding comes from these works). I’ve responded to some of the problems with your definition in this current post. If you would like a more organized, line-by-line response to your definition, please ask I’ll give it.

~Matt
 
“Scripture was the sole source of revelation; that it was the final authoritative norm of doctrine and practice; that it was to be interpreted in and by the Church…” (p. 256).

Mathison continues by expounding on this definition in much greater detail. Of particular relevance to your definition and some of your responses in this thread, he writes:

“It is important to notice that sola scriptura, properly understood, is not a claim that Scripture is the only authority altogether…There are other real authorities which are subordinate and derivative in nature” (p. 260).
WHAT? scripture alone, does not mean scripture alone now? Final and sole authority, does not mean the one and only authority?
The problem with protestants is they use too many qualifiers in the doctrines they profess, its too subjective. I must have REAL faith, SAVING Faith, Faith ALONE, properly understood, other REAL authorities, Final Authority, but not quite the final authority. And you wonder why Catholics just dont get it? I dont think you guys get it.
Its important to notice… Are you kidding, its too important NOT to notice.
Name the OTHER authorities.
This is news to me. When Catholics talk about ORAL TRADITIONS, protestants throw their hands up in the air and roll their eyes.
You are starting to sound like a Catholic. “authority outside of scripture.” , but still submissive to scripture.
I guess the true doctrine is NOT QUITE scriptura alone then. Just what the Catholic church has been teaching for 2000 years.

By the way. We call true Catholics Saints. The reast of us are Saints in the making…Catholics submit to the authority of the church even though they fall short of perfection.
 
40.png
RMP:
WHAT? scripture alone, does not mean scripture alone now? Final and sole authority, does not mean the one and only authority?
Having read Protestant works on the subject, this shouldn’t be a surprise to you; you should be aware of what kind of “sola” authority it is. It’s to be seen as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.
Name the OTHER authorities.
This is news to me.
You’ve repeatedly ignored my requests for you to demonstrate that your understanding of Sola Scriptura is derived from Protestant works. When you combine that with this last response from you, it’s clear that you either haven’t read or are deliberately misrepresenting the Protestant works, Reformers or otherwise, from which you imply your understanding of the doctrine is formulated.

You’ve lost all credibility with me to properly represent the classical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You would make more progress in discussions with Protestants if you accurately represented one of their key doctrines. Do you like it, for example, when various Protestants claim that Catholics teach that Mary is to be worshipped? If you don’t like it when the teachings of your church are misrepresented, why do persist in misrepresenting a doctrine held dear by many of your separated brethren?

~Matt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top