Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[dronald]

Dronald, your answer is to put your fingers in your ears and say, “CAN TO” over and over until someone accepts your views?

I’ve actually explained quite fruitlessly how Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture; and the history of the Church and how all the ECF’s prove their points from Scripture.

 

[dronald]

This proves our point! lol

And BTW, they have more books in their Bible than we do

Apparently the beliefs that came outside of Scriptures have failed both your Church’s.

And they do, yet your Canon was closed at Trent so I don’t understand how this helps you.

 

[dronald]

It does not matter,because it is not a ***matter ***which had an existence in Christianity until the Reformation.

Again…SS means exactly that…ONLY WAS WRITTEN is to be followed and taught.

The Church Christ founded was not founded on such a belief nor did it ever practice it.

Again, if SS were such a vital practice, I find it very odd not ONE ECF ever defends it exhaustively and not once mentioned at any ecumenical council.

What can you be certain Paul and Jesus spoke on that are not found in Scripture? Do you have any doctrines at all that you know they discussed that are not recorded in our Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

What can you be certain Paul and Jesus spoke on that are not found in Scripture? Do you have any doctrines at all that you know they discussed that are not recorded in our Bible?

After you tell me where Jesus said:

Doctrines must be in scripture in order to believed.

Chapter and verse…where Scripture teaches such a position?

Yes…the canon of the NT. Show me where it is stated?

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve actually explained quite fruitlessly how Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture; and the history of the Church and how all the ECF’s prove their points from Scripture.

And amazingly I love how Protestants point to Sola Scriptura in relation to the ECF’s;yet never mention the scores of other Catholic beliefs the ECF’s defended and supported.

 

[dronald]

After you tell me where Jesus said:

Doctrines must be in scripture in order to believed.

Chapter and verse…where Scripture teaches such a position?

Yes…the canon of the NT. Show me where it is stated?

Paul says not to go beyond what is written; Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Paul quotes Luke, etc, etc. I’ve gone through this but as I said, even if Paul says, “do not go beyond what is written” I can’t say he meant it for us too. I certainly believe he did, because he says doing so shall cause division.

 

[Nicea325]

Paul says not to go beyond what is written; Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Paul quotes Luke, etc, etc. I’ve gone through this but as I said, even if Paul says, “do not go beyond what is written” I can’t say he meant it for us too. I certainly believe he did, because he says doing so shall cause division.

Answer the question:

Where does Jesus teach:

All doctrine must be written down in order to believed.

If SS were truly orthodox,then please show me where Jesus or any of the 12 taught EVER the above position?

 

[marywarfield]

Paul says not to go beyond what is written; Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Paul quotes Luke, etc, etc. I’ve gone through this but as I said, even if Paul says, “do not go beyond what is written” I can’t say he meant it for us too. I certainly believe he did, because he says doing so shall cause division.

Jesus Himself went beyond what was already written
and the “Scripture” followers did not accept him- they
crucified Him.
Now you tell us not to go outside what is actually written?
How are SS followers any different than the hostile
Jews of Jesus’ day???

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Paul says not to go beyond what is written; Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Paul quotes Luke, etc, etc. I’ve gone through this but as I said, even if Paul says, “do not go beyond what is written” I can’t say he meant it for us too. I certainly believe he did, because he says doing so shall cause division.

That would mean to not go beyond the Old Testament. And if you wish to imply the New Testament, you bear the proof of showing the list in Scriptures (Which we already know no one can).

 

[JonNC]

And amazingly I love how Protestants point to Sola Scriptura in relation to the ECF’s;yet never mention the scores of other Catholic beliefs the ECF’s defended and supported.

I’ll mention to them.

Jon

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Paul says not to go beyond what is written; Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture. Paul quotes Luke, etc, etc. I’ve gone through this but as I said, even if Paul says, “do not go beyond what is written” I can’t say he meant it for us too. I certainly believe he did, because he says doing so shall cause division.

Yet we do not have all of what Paul taught, we have but a fraction of his thought. Was Paul referring to his own letters here? He was referring to the Old testament and I have grave doubts he would have dared to declare his writings as wholly inspired on level (rather it seems the church later recognized the greatness of his epistles as being inspired). Would the sermons by Jesus on the entire old testament after his ressurection not be equally if not more inspired than any of the writings in the new testament as this is direct commentary by the lord himself? Do not get me wrong, I am not denying the importance of the New testament, but to take the New testament and the Old testament alone, I dare say if that was the standard since the apostles we would not have Christianity. The apostles didn’t hand their epistles to People and just say “stick with these,” it seems like it was a much more oral and hands on approach. The sad thing is that we know so little about the apostles and their precise thoughts on various different matters that the bible doesn’t specifically address, and tradition is important in this regaurd, a common outlook.

 

[eddie_too]

the RCC teaches that all “de fide” teachings of the RCC are supported in sacred scripture.

it also teaches that sacred scripture can only rightly be understood in light of sacred tradition.

as an aside, i am not sure everyone using the term “sola scriptura” mean the same thing when they use it.

maybe they could agree on the definition of the term before they continue disagreeing?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

the RCC teaches that all “de fide” teachings of the RCC are supported in sacred scripture.

it also teaches that sacred scripture can only rightly be understood in light of sacred tradition.

as an aside, i am not sure everyone using the term “sola scriptura” mean the same thing when they use it.

maybe they could agree on the definition of the term before they continue disagreeing?

I assume that the Lutheran parties on this forum have used sola scriptura in terms of scripture being the highest authority but not excluding tradition. I have criticized this definition.

Other than that I assume some others might be using the much more limited sola scriptura view that we should not use anything beyond scripture or at least anything beyond scripture is treated with great skepticism, like the early church fathers or the traditions of the church.

I am unsure of a third definition of sola scripture which is distinct from either of these two views.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Apparently the beliefs that came outside of Scriptures have failed both your Church’s.

It failed? How did it failed?

The gates of hell have not and will not prevail!!!

And they do, yet your Canon was closed at Trent so I don’t understand how this helps you.

At this point it doesn’t matter what I explain, because:

1. It’s me
2. I’m Catholic

 

[HeteroDoxical]

It does not matter,because it is not a ***matter ***which had an existence in Christianity until the Reformation.

Again…SS means exactly that…ONLY WAS WRITTEN is to be followed and taught.

The Church Christ founded was not founded on such a belief nor did it ever practice it.

Again, if SS were such a vital practice, I find it very odd not ONE ECF ever defends it exhaustively and not once mentioned at any ecumenical council.

I can not speak for dro…

but Luther’s idea of SS was pretty acceptable I think.

His view was, if the Church proposed something that was not scriptural, the Church was wrong. It’s interpretations could not contradict scripture.

From Luther it became a humiliatingly embarrassing beast to defend as it’s used to do. If you are SS you must ignore SS. That’s a conundrum. S contradicts SS.

 

[dronald]

That would mean to not go beyond the Old Testament. And if you wish to imply the New Testament, you bear the proof of showing the list in Scriptures (Which we already know no one can).

Paul would have never commanded his fellow Christians to not go beyond what is in the OT. For us to believe that Paul commanded Christians to only observe the OT is just plain silly.

 

[dronald]

Answer the question:

Where does Jesus teach:

All doctrine must be written down in order to believed.

If SS were truly orthodox,then please show me where Jesus or any of the 12 taught EVER the above position?

Paul does. Lol.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

I’ve actually explained quite fruitlessly how Peter calls Paul’s letters Scripture; and the history of the Church and how all the ECF’s prove their points from Scripture.

Great, If you accept PAUL, then you accept TRADITION, because PAUL started it. anything else?

 

[dronald]

Jesus Himself went beyond what was already written
and the “Scripture” followers did not accept him- they
crucified Him.
Now you tell us not to go outside what is actually written?
How are SS followers any different than the hostile
Jews of Jesus’ day???

Actually, Jesus condemned them for silly rituals that were nowhere to be found in Scripture. Ritualistic hand washing for one.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

After you tell me where Jesus said:

Doctrines must be in scripture in order to believed.

Chapter and verse…where Scripture teaches such a position?

Yes…the canon of the NT. Show me where it is stated?

You would agree, the scriptures were written to keep the doctrines straight wouldn’t you?