Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Nicea325]

I disagree. I believe many early church fathers practice Sola Scriptura, that is scripture being the norming norm of doctrine. Would you like to read some of them?

Save them! Been there. I have read scores of them by Protestants over the decades and they are always taken way out of context…always! Sorry,but I am bursting your bubble,it is a serious flaw by Protestants who try to present a smoking gun that the early church fathers practiced Sola Scriptura.

Present ONE early church father who **wrote exhaustively in defense **of SS as a vital practice? Show me one authentic work by one ECF who defended SS to no end?

I can present scores of many ECF who wrote in defense of many practices and guess what? Not one has your back on SS.

 

[Nicea325]

I vehemently disagree with your analysis and assessment of scripture.

Scripture is not an “inanimate object”. On the contrary:
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
*

Jesus words are authoritative because he is God. Can you name for me an authority that is more authoritative than Jesus own words?

After you show us where Jesus explicitly said:

Written Scripture is the Highest authority.

Still waiting to read such a verse.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How would I go about evaluating those claims?

You could look to history, for one.

Both the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope of Rome seem to have a valid claim, as well as any other bishop.

No, they don’t. The Chair of Peter is a unique office, as was the Chair of Moses in Jesus’ time.

And I don’t see someone in church history claiming that this person or that person is the SOLE successor of Peter, at least not for hundreds of years.

Can you actually support this?

I am happy to concede that they BOTH are the successor of Peter.

They are not, and cannot be, both the successors to St. Peter’s OFFICE, which is of necessity singular, just as the office of the “over-the-house” (Prime Minister) in the Davidic Kingdom could not be shared.

Even then, it seems that most in the early church and the eastern church today believe that ALL bishops are the successor to Peter.

Do you have any support for this statement?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jesus words are authoritative because he is God. Can you name for me an authority that is more authoritative than Jesus own words?

Indeed He is:

[bibledrb]John 10:16[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]John 20:19-23[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Matthew 16:18-19[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

This is the authority He left us. A Magisterium.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

After you show us where Jesus explicitly said:

Written Scripture is the Highest authority.

Still waiting to read such a verse.

As I said before, I cannot show you where it says “this collection of books is the supreme authority”. The collection having not been compiled yet.

I can show you verses where scripture is the authority appealed to. Would you like to read them?

 

[eddie_too]

you posted this quotation from sacred scripture, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

what does that mean to you? does it mean that the word of God is only found in sacred scripture? does it mean that sacred scripture can move itself from place to place as do many other creatures that are alive? does it mean that sacred scripture can be used to cleave meat from the bone? or, is the meaning not literal in any sense?

how do you interpret the verse and why should people accept your interpretation as authoritative or complete?

i am pretty sure you do not take the verse literally, but if i am wrong about that, please correct me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

As I said before, I cannot show you where it says “this collection of books is the supreme authority”. The collection having not been compiled yet.

Right, just like you can’t show the index of the book to be considered as Scriptures from Scriptures.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Save them! Been there. I have read scores of them by Protestants over the decades and they are always taken way out of context…always! Sorry,but I am bursting your bubble,it is a serious flaw by Protestants who try to present a smoking gun that the early church fathers practiced Sola Scriptura.

Present ONE early church father who **wrote exhaustively in defense **of SS as a vital practice? Show me one authentic work by one ECF who defended SS to no end?

I can present scores of many ECF who wrote in defense of many practices and guess what? Not one has your back on SS.

Sorry I don’t understand your response.

You’re asking me to save them, then your asking me to present one.

Would you like to read them or not?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Right, just like you can’t show the index of the book to be considered as Scriptures from Scriptures.

Indeed. The books that ARE scripture or whether or not a book is scripture has naught to do with the practice of norming doctrine by scripture.

 

[eddie_too]

what do you mean by these words “norming doctrine”? how do you interpret those words when used together?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

you posted this quotation from sacred scripture, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

what does that mean to you? does it mean that the word of God is only found in sacred scripture? does it mean that sacred scripture can move itself from place to place as do many other creatures that are alive? does it mean that sacred scripture can be used to cleave meat from the bone? or, is the meaning not literal in any sense?

how do you interpret the verse and why should people accept your interpretation as authoritative or complete?

i am pretty sure you do not take the verse literally, but if i am wrong about that, please correct me.

It’s clearly metaphorical, and I don’t need a pope or magisterium to let me know its metaphorical. Since no thinking person would believe that scripture can walk around like a cat or dog. And no Christians has ever taking it that way. I am happy take it as the church has always taking it. That scripture is not a “dead letter” its authoritative and convicts us and corrects and reproved us.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Indeed He is:

[bibledrb]John 10:16[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]John 20:19-23[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Matthew 16:18-19[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

This is the authority He left us. A Magisterium.

I think your reading things into scripture. I don’t see a magisterium present here.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think your reading things into scripture. I don’t see a magisterium present here.

So you see something different than I do in Scriptures…

I guess we are both right even if we disagree and our interpretation is at odds. And we are both using the same source.

Maybe we need, yet, another denomination. Based on Scripture Alone of course.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

what do you mean by these words “norming doctrine”? how do you interpret those words when used together?

I mean that all doctrines that we take to be matters of necessary believe must be in the scriptures, the scriptures being the final rule of faith and practice. All doctrines not normed in this way are at best adiaphora, at worst false doctrine.

Also I take scripture to be that norm that is itself not normed. But example scripture doesn’t need to comply with our doctrine, our doctrine needs to comply with scripture. To teach otherwise it place oneself about scripture, and God himself.

 

[eddie_too]

if scripture is a clear as some would have us believe, why are their over 35,000 denominations that disagree on its correct intepretation?

that is the reality. there is next to no agreement on the meaning of sacred scripture within christianity.

when you add in non-christian interpretations of sacred scripture, the numbers are even greater.

what kind of person would hand out a book and say this is the highest authority after knowing that in only five hundred years of such a teaching it has resulted in over 35,000 different understandings of the book?

who would place any authority in a book that has demonstrated that it is easily misunderstood and has resulted only in division among the peoples who depend upon it?

whatever authority exists in sacred scriptures is there only because Jesus gave His authority to human beings and that authority includes understanding and interpreting the words those human beings have declared to be inspired.

this idea that sacred scripture interprets itself is the height of incoherence and defies reality.

 

[dronald]

if scripture is a clear as some would have us believe, why are their over 35,000 denominations that disagree on its correct intepretation?

that is the reality. there is next to no agreement on the meaning of sacred scripture within christianity.

when you add in non-christian interpretations of sacred scripture, the numbers are even greater.

what kind of person would hand out a book and say this is the highest authority after knowing that in only five hundred years of such a teaching it has resulted in over 35,000 different understandings of the book?

who would place any authority in a book that has demonstrated that it is easily misunderstood and has resulted only in division among the peoples who depend upon it?

whatever authority exists in sacred scriptures is there only because Jesus gave His authority to human beings and that authority includes understanding and interpreting the words those human beings have declared to be inspired.

this idea that sacred scripture interprets itself is the height of incoherence and defies reality.

Would you say then, that the differences between the branches of Orthodoxy (who consider themselves “Catholic”) and your Church invalidate your Church’s practices?

Or would that just be down right silly?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

if scripture is a clear as some would have us believe, why are their over 35,000 denominations that disagree on its correct intepretation?

that is the reality. there is next to no agreement on the meaning of sacred scripture within christianity.

when you add in non-christian interpretations of sacred scripture, the numbers are even greater.

what kind of person would hand out a book and say this is the highest authority after knowing that in only five hundred years of such a teaching it has resulted in over 35,000 different understandings of the book?

who would place any authority in a book that has demonstrated that it is easily misunderstood and has resulted only in division among the peoples who depend upon it?

whatever authority exists in sacred scriptures is there only because Jesus gave His authority to human beings and that authority includes understanding and interpreting the words those human beings have declared to be inspired.

this idea that sacred scripture interprets itself is the height of incoherence and defies reality.

if scripture is a clear as some would have us believe, why are their over 35,000 denominations that disagree on its correct intepretation?

35,002 considering you aren’t throwing the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the mix.

that is the reality. there is next to no agreement on the meaning of sacred scripture within christianity.

I disagree. Christianity is actually remarkably unified. Even the different denominations. Much more unified than most other world religions.

what kind of person would hand out a book and say this is the highest authority after knowing that in only five hundred years of such a teaching it has resulted in over 35,000 different understandings of the book?

35002 understandings including the RC and EO communions.

 

[dronald]

Consistently Jesus commands us to put His words into practice. Are there any words that can be attributed to Jesus outside of Scripture in the Catholic Religion?

 

[Nicea325]

As I said before, I cannot show you where it says “this collection of books is the supreme authority”. The collection having not been compiled yet.

I can show you verses where scripture is the authority appealed to. Would you like to read them?

We are going in circles here. If you have admitted that you cannot support such a position before the canon or after the formalized canon,then how on earth can you expect others to believe it is an orthodox practice? We can support the Trinity,Hypostatic Union,etc,etc.

Verses showing that **scripture-only **is the only authority to appeal to?

 

[Nicea325]

Consistently Jesus commands us to put His words into practice. Are there any words that can be attributed to Jesus outside of Scripture in the Catholic Religion?

Yes…words…not written words alone,big difference. SS advocates are injecting a practice never once said or taught by Jesus.