Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[FathersKnowBest]

There was no New Testament in the 1st century Church.

How do you know the New Testament is Scripture?

Interesting fact: in the first century Church, the New Testament refered primarily to the sacrament of the Eucharist. The books that comprise the NT today weren’t referred to as the NT until much later. They were the “books of the NT” because they described and witnessed to the Eucharist.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t have an answer that you are looking for. There is no verse that says “this collection of books is the highest authority”.

Good. Now, how do you know that “this collection of books is the highest authority”?

There are plenty of verses that appeal to scripture for authority. I am fine to do that.

Oh, the Catholic Church has always believed that scripture is an authority.
And we don’t really put one authority above another. All sources of God’s Truth are true. Truth can’t contradict truth. How can one BE above another?

Can you show us a doctrine of the first century, considered infallible by the church, that was outside of scripture, and how we know.

Not entirely outside of scripture, but not explicit in scripture.

You see, scripture is true insofar as it is properly interpreted. The interpretation of scritpure is an authority reserved for the Church that wrote, protected, and canonized it. The Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.

 

[Nicea325]

House Harkonnen:

The church recognized which scriptures were canon. There were others circulating but they were non canonical and the church recognized them as such.

Really? So by the end of the first century the canon was officially ratified? Provide me with one name of an Apostle or church father declaring the current NT canon before the end of the first century?

I don’t have an answer that you are looking for. There is no verse that says “this collection of books is the highest authority”.

You do not have one because your position is no where taught. No where does Scripture ever declare such a position. How can you assert written Scripture is the highest authority and yet provide no support? In other words, it is your own invention and expect others to believe it was believed and taught by the early church.

There are plenty of verses that appeal to scripture for authority. I am fine to do that.

As “a” authority…not “the” authority as you have claimed. Christianity does not revolve around the Bible nor was it founded by a book called the Bible.

Can you show us a doctrine of the first century, considered infallible by the church, that was outside of scripture, and how we know.

Before you show us where everything had to be written first to be considered doctrine?

You are the one insisting Scripture is the highest authority,then show us where in Scripture or outside the NT this position was taught and practiced?

 

[Nicea325]

If you already had your answer, why did you ask for bible verses enumerating the Trinity?

Nope! You are the one insisting written Scripture is the higest authority and believe Scripture alone is the only source giving us the deep explanation of the Trinity. Read history and you will be shocked it was the Church Christ founded which has given us the deep theological explanation of all doctrines,not ONLY the Bible. Did the Bible also ratify all core doctrines? Did the Bible alone already provide us the official canonization process for the NT?

No offense,but you have bought into a novel belief that the Bible is the only source of Truth and it basically defined in-depth and shaped all of our doctrines,without any external entity.

 

[Nicea325]

Ahem… if I’m reading this correctly, you’re sort of putting words unto our Lutheran mouths. We don’t deny other authorities, only that if there’s a conflict that God’s word would trump.

On the contrary, your fellow Lutheran is putting words into the Church about a position nowhere taught or believed. But he is denying another authority called church because he explicitly stated:

Scripture is the highest authority.

Crystal clear what is being said!

 

[dronald]

Nope! You are the one insisting written Scripture is the higest authority and believe Scripture alone is the only source giving us the deep explanation of the Trinity. Read history and you will be shocked it was the Church Christ founded which has given us the deep theological explanation of all doctrines,not ONLY the Bible. Did the Bible also ratify all core doctrines? Did the Bible alone already provide us the official canonization process for the NT?

No offense,but you have bought into a novel belief that the Bible is the only source of Truth and it basically defined in-depth and shaped all of our doctrines,without any external entity.

So you’re saying that when the Early Church defined the Trinity, they went outside of Scripture to do so?

 

[Nicea325]

Perhaps:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Basically, this parallels how the church uses scripture to correct improper traditions.

Sorry,but 2 Tim 3:16 has been seriously taken out of context over and over. No where does the verse state: ONLY Scripture is the authority or only authority or scripture alone. No where! More important, St.Paul did not write those words in defense or suggesting only scriptue is the source or authority.

 

[Nicea325]

So you’re saying that when the Early Church defined the Trinity, they went outside of Scripture to do so?

No! No offense,but I cannot comprehend why so many Protestants cannot go outside the Bible-only circle. The church received all teachings via Jesus through oral instructions. Jesus did not say:

Write this down in great detail and this will be the only source.

The church is the entity which definded and explained core doctrines in detail. If the Bible-only had all this deep theological explanations,then why even bother having the church play any role?

 

[dronald]

No! No offense,but I cannot comprehend why so many Protestants cannot go outside the Bible-only circle. The church received all teachings via Jesus through oral instructions. Jesus did not say:

Write this down in great detail and this will be the only source.

The church is the entity which definded and explained core doctrines in detail. If the Bible-only had all this deep theological explanations,then why even bother having the church play any role?

I’m sorry, but you’ve confused me here a bit. Did the Church go outside Scripture in order to help define the Trinity? When the Church gave it’s definition of the Trinity, did they look for sources outside of Scripture?

 

[eddie_too]

sacred scripture tells us that Jesus said and did many things that are not contained in the pages of the new testament.

further development of the doctrine of the Trinity could be among those many things. the doctrine of one Divine Person with two natures could be another. others Jesus might have taught but were not included in the writings of the new testament might be infant baptism, papal primacy, apostolic succession, all seven sacraments. the list could be quite extensive.

the only way we could possibly know teachings of Jesus that are not contained in the new testament is through oral tradition.

for me, and only me, it is entirely absurd to believe that everything Jesus did and taught is contained in the canonical new testament writings. such a belief defies logic and it defies the words of the new testament writings themselves.

Jesus spent three years directly teaching and training the twelve apostles to be the foundation of His Church.

how can anyone believe that everything He taught them is contained in the few pages of the new testament writings that were written down anywhere from five to 60 years after the words were spoken and the events occurred.

it is beyond dispute that the gospel of Jesus Christ existed first in its oral form. it is reasonable to believe that this oral form is more comprehensive than the written form.

it is reasonable to believe that the written form alone is insufficient for knowing and understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

if it were sufficient, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be unanimous agreement among those who read these writings as to how they should be interpreted. instead we find that, beginning about 1500 years after the Ascension of our Lord in to heaven, the written form has resulted in approximately 35,000 different interpretations. if that is not convincing evidence of the inadequacy of sacred scripture to ensure fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ, i am at a loss at understanding the reasonableness of those who disagree.

perhaps as a exercise, people can think back to an event in their lives that occurred twenty or more years ago and then write down an account of that event while simultaneously having the others at the event do the same with all participants writing their accounts independently and see what is included and what is not included in the accounts.

 

[JonNC]

Good. Now, how do you know that “this collection of books is the highest authority”?

Oh, the Catholic Church has always believed that scripture is an authority.
And we don’t really put one authority above another. All sources of God’s Truth are true. Truth can’t contradict truth. How can one BE above another?

Not entirely outside of scripture, but not explicit in scripture.

You see, scripture is true insofar as it is properly interpreted. The interpretation of scritpure is an authority reserved for the Church that wrote, protected, and canonized it. The Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.

And here’s the problem; that Church had a Great Schism, which split the patriarchs and bishops, and therefore, the authority, and Tradition, and the Church which is indeed that pillar and bulwark of Truth.

Were that Schism healed, were the Church speaking with a singular voice what Tradition says, there would be no need to continue with a different practice of holding Tradition accountable.

As it stands, does the pope have universal jurisdiction, or does he not, does the Filioque belong, or does it not, was there an IC, or not. Etcetera.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sorry,but 2 Tim 3:16 has been seriously taken out of context over and over. No where does the verse state: **ONLY Scripture is the authority or only authority or scripture alone. No where! **More important, St.Paul did not write those words in defense or suggesting only scriptue is the source or authority.

Lutherans don’t say this either. In fact, we say quite the opposite. House mentioned that it is the Church that determines the canon of scripture, and it is the Church that uses scripture to hold teaching and doctrines accountable.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

sacred scripture tells us that Jesus said and did many things that are not contained in the pages of the new testament.

further development of the doctrine of the Trinity could be among those many things. the doctrine of one Divine Person with two natures could be another. others Jesus might have taught but were not included in the writings of the new testament might be infant baptism, papal primacy, apostolic succession, all seven sacraments. the list could be quite extensive.

the only way we could possibly know teachings of Jesus that are not contained in the new testament is through oral tradition.

for me, and only me, it is entirely absurd to believe that everything Jesus did and taught is contained in the canonical new testament writings. such a belief defies logic and it defies the words of the new testament writings themselves.

Jesus spent three years directly teaching and training the twelve apostles to be the foundation of His Church.

how can anyone believe that everything He taught them is contained in the few pages of the new testament writings that were written down anywhere from five to 60 years after the words were spoken and the events occurred.

it is beyond dispute that the gospel of Jesus Christ existed first in its oral form. it is reasonable to believe that this oral form is more comprehensive than the written form.

it is reasonable to believe that the written form alone is insufficient for knowing and understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

if it were sufficient, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be unanimous agreement among those who read these writings as to how they should be interpreted. instead we find that, beginning about 1500 years after the Ascension of our Lord in to heaven, the written form has resulted in approximately 35,000 different interpretations. if that is not convincing evidence of the inadequacy of sacred scripture to ensure fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ, i am at a loss at understanding the reasonableness of those who disagree.

perhaps as a exercise, people can think back to an event in their lives that occurred twenty or more years ago and then write down an account of that event while simultaneously having the others at the event do the same with all participants writing their accounts independently and see what is included and what is not included in the accounts.

At least 35,002, since there was disagreement within the Church prior to the Reformation.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And here’s the problem; that Church had a Great Schism, which split the patriarchs and bishops, and therefore, the authority, and Tradition, and the Church which is indeed that pillar and bulwark of Truth.

Were that Schism healed, were the Church speaking with a singular voice what Tradition says, there would be no need to continue with a different practice of holding Tradition accountable.

As it stands, does the pope have universal jurisdiction, or does he not, does the Filioque belong, or does it not, was there an IC, or not. Etcetera.

Jon

The portion of the Church that stayed with St. Peter is the one with the Authority of Christ.

Lu 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural - all the Apostles], that he might sift you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you [singular - Peter alone] that your [singular - literally “the faith of you”] faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

This was at the last supper, right after He had promised them:
Lu 22:28 "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So, He promises them a kingdom, but that Satan wants to sift them all like wheat. Jesus, though has prayed for St. Peter alone, and wants St. Peter to strengthen the bretheren in the faith.

 

[JonNC]

The portion of the Church that stayed with St. Peter is the one with the Authority of Christ.

Lu 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [plural - all the Apostles], that he might sift you [plural] like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you [singular - Peter alone] that your [singular - literally “the faith of you”] faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

This was at the last supper, right after He had promised them:
Lu 22:28 "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

So, He promises them a kingdom, but that Satan wants to sift them all like wheat. Jesus, though has prayed for St. Peter alone, and wants St. Peter to strengthen the bretheren in the faith.

This assumes that St. Peter is only in Rome. This assumes that no one else has St. Peter. We have St. Peter, the EO has St. Peter, and Rome has St. Peter. We have all stayed with St. Peter.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This assumes that St. Peter is only in Rome.

Not exactly.

It assumes that the OFFICE of St. Peter is the Bishoprick of Rome.

As all the Early Church Fathers attest.

This assumes that no one else has St. Peter. We have St. Peter, the EO has St. Peter, and Rome has St. Peter. We have all stayed with St. Peter.

Jon

That sounds good, but it is untrue.

That’s like Jefferson Davis contending that he holds the office of George Washington.

 

[JonNC]

Not exactly.

It assumes that the OFFICE of St. Peter is the Bishoprick of Rome.

As all the Early Church Fathers attest.

That sounds good, but it is untrue.

That’s like Jefferson Davis contending that he holds the office of George Washington.

Oh, its quite true. The analogy is a non-sequitor because Davis never claimed to be president of the US, but claimed to be a new country. Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. claim to remain part of the OHCAC.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Oh, its quite true. The analogy is a non-sequitor because Davis never claimed to be president of the US, but claimed to be a new country.

Who else claimed to be the successor of St. Peter?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Oh, its quite true. The analogy is a non-sequitor because Davis never claimed to be president of the US, but claimed to be a new country. Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. claim to remain part of the OHCAC.

Jon

Let me get this straight:

1. St. Peter is the acknowledged “Prime Minister” to whom Christ passed on the title of Shepherd of all the Church
2. His office is guaranteed by Christ to continue in perpetuity
3. You claim that, even though you disengage from that Christ-given and guaranteed authority, you are still part of the OHCAC

Do I have that right?

 

[benjohnson]

On the contrary, your fellow Lutheran is putting words into the Church about a position nowhere taught or believed. But he is denying another authority called church because he explicitly stated:

I was getting grumpy at your comments like this “ONLY Scripture is the authority or only authority or scripture alone”

When that isn’t what we are saying - we certainly acknowledge other authorities.