Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerofTruth27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dronald said:
Paul says not to go beyond what is written;
Click to expand...
You don’t even care that is exactly WRONG, do you? That is not the Paulian teaching on the topic.
dronald said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, Paul contradicted him self, and was a liar? There is a way to reconcile things and a bigger truth??? What are we doing here.

Paul says remember what I said and pass it on to reliable witnesses, and that Timothy was responsible for protecting those words…

OR did he say only do what is written? 😛

What a conundrum.
 
dronald said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see, just like its silly to find what Paul meant what is Scriptures in Scriptures?

Just like its silly to pretend that the bible fell from the sky with a table of contents?

Just plain silly…

I’ll take your arguments as seriously as I take Bishop Harkonnen…

Au revoir, Bishop Dronald.
 
I’m still waiting…
😛

Quote:
Originally Posted by dronald View Post
All of their beliefs and explanations of beliefs (in the first two centuries) are pulled from Scripture. Read Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, etc. They quote Scripture a ridiculous amount of times to prove the truth of their Faith.

Never once do they pretend something should be believed that isn’t written down. They never once said, “Paul said this, but we don’t have it in writing.” Or, “Jesus said this, but you won’t find it in any writing.” Rather, they only quoted Scripture to prove their beliefs.
Paul said exactly that. To teach what he said, and pass it down.

Was paul so much an idiot he needs your wisdom to fix his errors?

2 Timothy 2
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Be Strong in Grace

2 You, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

1 Tim 6:Guard the Heritage

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding irreverent, empty speech and contradictions from the “knowledge” that falsely bears that name. 21 By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith.
 
Nicea325 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Even SS doesn’t provide that position. Only that doctrine be held accountable to scripture. For example, from our perspective, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can certainly be** believed**, as it does not contradict scripture, though it cannot be doctrine.

Jon
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
?

Just like its silly to pretend that the bible fell from the sky with a table of contents?

Just plain silly…

I’ll take your arguments as seriously as I take Bishop Harkonnen…

Au revoir, Bishop Dronald.
Click to expand...
Out of all the people I’ve had discussions with on CAF, you’ve always been the most charitable and respectful, not afraid to joke around here and there despite our differences. So I hope you’re kidding around and not being sarcastic with me like so many other posters.

Also, can you cite me an official Pastor who has claimed the Bible “fell from the sky”? I’m going to ask this from now on when Catholics make this claim, because I’ve never heard anyone say they believe it. Maybe there’s a group of skyist Christians or something. Do they have a website?

Thanks.
 
dronald said:
Out of all the people I’ve had discussions with on CAF, you’ve always been the most charitable and respectful, not afraid to joke around here and there despite our differences. So I hope you’re kidding around and not being sarcastic with me like so many other posters.

Also, can you cite me an official Pastor who has claimed the Bible “fell from the sky”? I’m going to ask this from now on when Catholics make this claim, because I’ve never heard anyone say they believe it. Maybe there’s a group of skyist Christians or something. Do they have a website?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Of course I’m being silly.

Now I wonder thou… Were you being silly on the post I responded to?
 
DRON are you so focused on beating up the RCC that you won’t answer PAUL defining scripture because I’m protestant???

Do you flee those verses for a reason other than… you have no answer?
 
HeteroDoxical said:
DRON are you so focused on beating up the RCC that you won’t answer PAUL defining scripture because I’m protestant???

Do you flee those verses for a reason other than… you have no answer?
Click to expand...
I never beat up the RCC, I just defend my position.

I don’t have any issue with the passages provided, why should I?
 
Nicea325 said:
No offense,but I admire your effort to support and believe the ECF were advocates of SS. To bad it is not true. Does not matter how many times Protestants pull quotes to present a smoking gun to prove SS,it simply is false. When the ECF’s quotes are presented in support of the bogus practice of SS and yet when read in their entire proper context nothing can be further from the truth.

Tell me something,if the ECF were such SS supporters,how strange not one ECF ever wrote extensively or exhaustively on SS being that it is the highest authority?
Click to expand...
I am afraid simply saying something is not true is not much of an argument, I have presented a number of quotes showing what a number of the early church fathers have said. There are more that could be given.
With respect to Scripture the highest authority I have already quoted Augustine as saying that they are the paramount and on the highest, even heavenly, ground of authority I think that they didn’t write more extensively or exhaustively on the topic as there was no need to because the practice was not really challenged.
Can you show definitive Church teaching denying formal sufficiency or condemning these fathers for what they say?
 
Nicea325 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, not only what is written is to be taught but everything needed is written clearly enough to be understood. It is not that nothing is unclear, It is not that nothing outside Scripture can be taught. It is not that the Church has no authority but it is subject to what is in Scripture. It wasn’t disputed until Trent because it had not been necessary.
 
SyCarl said:
No, not only what is written is to be taught but everything needed is written clearly enough to be understood. It is not that nothing is unclear, It is not that nothing outside Scripture can be taught. It is not that the Church has no authority but it is subject to what is in Scripture. It wasn’t disputed until Trent because it had not been necessary.
Click to expand...
Like many things, the Church reacts when its challenged.

We cannot interpret implicit passages by themselves or with other implicit passages. We can only interpret the implicit with the explicit. In the absence of the explicit the Church assists.

This is Material Sufficiency.

Formal Sufficiency demands that all passages in Scriptures be explicit. That is not the case. For FS to be sustained, the average person can - on their own - understand and interpret Scriptures.

We all know that is not the case.

Christ knew it, Peter knew it, and all the Apostles knew it. The ECFs talk and appeal to Scriptures from Tradition and with the Church - never apart. Those that twisted the Scriptures were condemned and/or excommunicated. That is the difference.
 
Nicea325 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The church fathers do contain both Catholic and Protestant views because what was accepted was much broader then. They don’t go into great detail about them as there was no need to. Neither were they condemned for what they wrote that would fit Protestant views. You will find the fathers also made statements contrary to present Catholic teaching but they are still called doctors of the Church. Their statements may have been denied by later pronouncements but then when you change doctrine that is bound to happen

And yes, I view stating that something must now be believed that did not have to believed previously is changing doctrine.
 
dronald said:
I never beat up the RCC, I just defend my position.

I don’t have any issue with the passages provided, why should I?
Click to expand...
Paul describes Tradition, by definition of the concept…

you’ve ignored, fled, evaded, dodged, whatever, the point for a while now… so I’m sorta curious… whassup wid dat?

Timothy was told to remembber what Paul spoke, NOT WROTE DOWN.

And to carry it forward with the next generations. Protect that information.

That is about the picture of “Tradition”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top