Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerofTruth27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
After all the bashing on sola scriptura as a position we come to a point where no one can share anything that by not being roman catholic keeps me from salvation and helps me to be a better christian that I don’t already receive from God’s Word alone. Interesting, is it possible the rest is window dressing that does not matter (unless of course any of it obscures what does save and make me a better christian)? Food for thought.
I have no problem with sola. Use it enjoy it.
What I have a problem with is someone
insisting that Scriptura MUST be Sola. Lol.

Sorry. The fact that everything necessary is in Scripture
does not support the idea of Scripture is the only
place it’s found is it?

By all means be Sola! So what?
 
Stay on subject.

You receive the Scriptures outside of Scriptures and through the Church. You just made a personal choice to not receive anything else from the Catholic Church (And I am willfully ignoring Baptism, which you also receive through the Church).
Stay on subject? The subject is what exists outside of Scripture that I need in order to live a Christian life. Not the canon.
 
Who said that Christ failed? Where has any Lutheran said that Christ failed? He failed how? To preserve the Church? Has the Church Triumphant fallen to the gates of Hell?
That is the inescapable logical conclusion, even though it is never stated explicitely.
Christ didn’t fail at the Great Schism. He didn’t fail at the Reformation.
Correct. The Catholic Church still exists.
His Church continues where the faithful, the Baptized receive word and sacrament. When no one anymore can or does receive His word and sacrament,
The fullness of the seven sacraments is not available in protestantism.
I’m not willing to say the Church lost authority. Certainly, however, that authority is weakened and perhaps dispersed by Schism and division.
Authority can’t be dispersed and remain authority.
No Lutheran I know claims Luther had some type of authority in the Church.
Was Luther a Lutheran? He claimed to have authority.
But authority in the Church has never rested in the hands of one bishop.
True, but the Magisterial Authority of the Church persists in the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.
 
Stay on subject? The subject is what exists outside of Scripture that I need in order to live a Christian life. Not the canon.
Nothing exists outside of Scripture that you absolutely
need to live a Christian life. And in fact Scripture is
not necessary to live a Christian life. Many people
that never even heard of Christ live a Christian life
of love and charity etc. who never heard of Scripture either.
Like pagans on desert islands maybe or Indian tribes
deep in the Amazon. Will
they be saved? Very possibly if they never offended
God because yes- gasp- the Roman Catholic Church also
states that there exists NATURAL grace as well.

The Church has no problem with people claiming
salvation with only Scripture, no Scripture. What
the RC objects to is being told WE are going to
hell because we are NOT necessarily Sola!

And none of this supports the idea that we MUST
be Sola. Be it! Kudos! Go for it. But don’t tell US Sola
Scriptura is required. 🙂
 
The position of the early church was that every bishop was a successor to Peter.
Citation, please?
Strictly speaking, the Orthodox are right on this point. The fact of the matter is, though, that in Vatican I, the “infallible” canons stated it has always and everywhere been the position of the church that the Pope is successor to Peter, who was the rock, and has universal jurisdiction, etc. etc. It’s a manifestly false assertion.
Yet, I don’t see any evidence of this beyond your assertion. :confused:
The “magisterium” didn’t choose 27 books until 1546. If by magisterium you mean a council or official proclamation.
Not strictly true. The councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo all settled this matter. Although not ecumenical councils, at least some were ratified.
 
The “magisterium” didn’t choose 27 books until 1546. If by magisterium you mean a council or official proclamation.
Of course the Magisterium received the books.

The Magisterium was established in Matthew 28:

[bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

Magisterium means: Teaching Office, which is clearly what Christ established as the Authority for the Church.

Christ said: “Go Teach”.

That is what the Magisterium does… teach…

And the Trent argument is so incredibly weak… The Church has clearly established the 27 books to be considered the New Testament. That’s right, the Church one thousand and two hundred years before the “reformation”.

You reform from within, you dissent without.
 
Citation, please?
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Catholic scholar Robert Eno comments, “Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).
The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.
Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.
The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘…a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘…No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘…them to discern the womb and root…of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).
It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind…one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).”
Yet, I don’t see any evidence of this beyond your assertion. :confused:
Don’t see any evidence of what? That Rome asserts that it was always believed and held? See the canons of Vatican I.
 
Of course the Magisterium received the books.

The Magisterium was established in Matthew 28:

[bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

Magisterium means: Teaching Office, which is clearly what Christ established as the Authority for the Church.

Christ said: “Go Teach”.

That is what the Magisterium does… teach…

And the Trent argument is so incredibly weak… The Church has clearly established the 27 books to be considered the New Testament. That’s right, the Church one thousand and two hundred years before the “reformation”.

You reform from within, you dissent without.
Was there an ecumenical council that established this before 1546? Sure, you can point to local councils, not an ecumenical council. Not ordinarily infallible.
 
Nothing exists outside of Scripture that you absolutely
need to live a Christian life. And in fact Scripture is
not necessary to live a Christian life. Many people
that never even heard of Christ live a Christian life
of love and charity etc. who never heard of Scripture either.
They may live a moral life…at least outwardly, sure. That’s not a Christian life.
Like pagans on desert islands maybe or Indian tribes
deep in the Amazon. Will
they be saved? Very possibly if they never offended
God because yes- gasp- the Roman Catholic Church also
states that there exists NATURAL grace as well.
Gasp. Universalism. If justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
 
Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).

Catholic scholar Robert Eno comments, “Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter’s cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: ‘God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord’s authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood’ (Ep. 43.5).
The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.
Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.
The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, ‘…a like power is given to all the Apostles’ and ‘…No doubt the others were all that Peter was.’ Yet Peter was given the power first: ‘Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.’ The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are ‘glued together’ (Ep. 66.8).
Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian’s basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was ‘the root’ (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the ‘root.’ But in fact, in Cyprian’s teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted ‘…them to discern the womb and root…of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it’ (Ep. 48.3).
It is clear that in Cyprian’s mind…one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).”
You’re quite incorrectly reading into a hyperbolic distinction which doesn’t mean quite what you think it means. And you’re relying on a Catholic theologian’s analysis of another Catholic theologian’s opinion: a third-hand analysis!

St. Peter was given the power to forgive & retain sins as were all the Apostles later on. But St. Peter alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom.
Don’t see any evidence of what? That Rome asserts that it was always believed and held? See the canons of Vatican I.
Your statement " It’s a manifestly false assertion. " has absolutely no evidence presented, other than your simple assertion.
 
Was there an ecumenical council that established this before 1546? Sure, you can point to local councils, not an ecumenical council. Not ordinarily infallible.
I’m not going to follow your rabbit trails :nope:

Where did I say ecumenical or infallible?

A council has authority without being ecumenical and without being infallible.

Although, this presents a biggie for SS advocates. Because if the declaration of the New Testament is not infallible, then it means that we don’t know for certain of these are the books to be considered. That opens the door for a myriad of other books.

So, are these the books or not?

And a teaching authority has to be within the Church not without.
 
Was there an ecumenical council that established this before 1546? Sure, you can point to local councils, not an ecumenical council. Not ordinarily infallible.
Pope St. Innocent I (401-417) in 405 A.D., ratified the 73-book canon decided on at Carthage.

BTW, it’s this very same council that protestants depend on, whether they know it or not, for the NT canon.
 
They may live a moral life…at least outwardly, sure. That’s not a Christian life.

Gasp. Universalism. If justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
No it is not universalism. It is the Sermon on the Mount.
The Roman Catholic Church in her wisdom has always
asserted the natural moral law. And one of the main
supports is the Sermon on the Mount.
If you read the Sermon on the Mount you can see
that absolutely EVERYTHING necessary to live
a life in accordance to Christ is contained. A person
simply can live a life according to the Sermon on
the Mount without ever having heard of the Sermon
on the Mount, or Christ, or Scripture and yes be
saved. Even many Catholics argue that, not just the
Orthodox or Lutherans, because well…we all like to
believe we are the one and only in an exclusive
secret club. But the reality is Christ told his disciples
he had people in other places that were in as good a standing
but that these people were pretty much none of their
business just His. Haha!
Yes, man can through natural expression of natural
moral law be saved.
That is different from universalism. Universalism says
everyone WILL be saved regardless. No. We say
people CAN be saved not that all will be.

To understand the difference between the natural moral
law and universalism please read the catechism
on natural moral law.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

The reality most people don’t want to face is to be
saved all one must do is live according to
the Sermon on the Mount and God has given people
the ability to discern that naturally until that
discernment is clouded by sin.

Adam and Eve had it naturally and they never read
one word of Scripture or ever heard of Jesus Christ.
Yet in their original state they would have also been
saved except…they sinned against it.

Bummer- and we all thought we were Gods one and
onlies!!! 🙂
 
You’re quite incorrectly reading into a hyperbolic distinction which doesn’t mean quite what you think it means. And you’re relying on a Catholic theologian’s analysis of another Catholic theologian’s opinion: a third-hand analysis!

St. Peter was given the power to forgive & retain sins as were all the Apostles later on. But St. Peter alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom.
Oh? And what do the keys do other than bind and loose sin?
 
I’m not going to follow your rabbit trails :nope:

Where did I say ecumenical or infallible?

A council has authority without being ecumenical and without being infallible.
But not infallible authority. Which is the only reason the canon is ever brought up. “You can’t know what is Scripture unless the authority is infallible…blah blah blah.”
 
Pope St. Innocent I (401-417) in 405 A.D., ratified the 73-book canon decided on at Carthage.

BTW, it’s this very same council that protestants depend on, whether they know it or not, for the NT canon.
That would be God. But sure…He used the church as a secondary cause. I’m not denying that.
 
No it is not universalism. It is the Sermon on the Mount.
The Roman Catholic Church in her wisdom has always
asserted the natural moral law. And one of the main
supports is the Sermon on the Mount.
If you read the Sermon on the Mount you can see
that absolutely EVERYTHING necessary to live
a life in accordance to Christ is contained. A person
simply can live a life according to the Sermon on
the Mount without ever having heard of the Sermon
on the Mount, or Christ, or Scripture and yes be
saved.
That’s the defiition of universalism.
Even many Catholics argue that, not just the
Orthodox or Lutherans, because well…we all like to
believe we are the one and only in an exclusive
secret club.
It’s not a secret club. It’s the fact that there is no way to the Father but through faith in the Son. It’s not about a club. It’s about faith and obedience in the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
But the reality is Christ told his disciples
he had people in other places that were in as good a standing
but that these people were pretty much none of their
business just His. Haha!
Uhm, Gentiles. And they were the church’s business once He sent the church to them.
Yes, man can through natural expression of natural
moral law be saved.
All have sinned and fallen short of the law. Through the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, because the whole world is guilty of the law.
That is different from universalism. Universalism says
everyone WILL be saved regardless. No. We say
people CAN be saved not that all will be.
It’s still universalism.
The reality most people don’t want to face is to be
saved all one must do is live according to
the Sermon on the Mount and God has given people
the ability to discern that naturally until that
discernment is clouded by sin.
“All one must do?” You make it sound as if being perfect, as the Father is perfect, is a cinch.
Adam and Eve had it naturally and they never read
one word of Scripture or ever heard of Jesus Christ.
Actually, Jesus Christ would’ve walked with them daily. Unless you’re not only a universalist but also an Arian.
Yet in their original state they would have also been
saved except…they sinned against it.
Bummer- and we all thought we were Gods one and
onlies!!! 🙂
No original sin. Unless you’re not only a universalist and an Arian but also a Pelagian.
 
But not infallible authority. Which is the only reason the canon is ever brought up. “You can’t know what is Scripture unless the authority is infallible…blah blah blah.”


Its the big white elephant looking at you in the middle of the room.

And still, you agree and accept the New Testament as delineated by the Catholic Church :D.
 
That would be God. But sure…He used the church as a secondary cause. I’m not denying that.
Can you show where God gives primary revelation to the Canon of Scriptures?

You say the Church as secondary. Where is the primary revelation recorded?
 
Oh? And what do the keys do other than bind and loose sin?
It gave him the authority to govern the “house of God.”

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
  1. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt 16:19]. The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11]. The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles [cf. Matt 18:18] and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
Here’s an article that you should read:
St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top