Why do you believe in Sola Scriptura?

[Per_Crucem]

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?

The church is a secondary cause in the sense that she receives the text. She doesn’t authorize it, or canonize it herself. It became canon when it was inspired. The revelation is the text itself.

 

[marywarfield]

That’s the defiition of universalism.

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.

Uhm, Gentiles. And they were the church’s business once He sent the church to them.

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.

It’s still universalism.

“All one must do?” You make it sound as if being perfect, as the Father is perfect, is a cinch.

Actually, Jesus Christ would’ve walked with them daily. Unless you’re not only a universalist but also an Arian.

No original sin. Unless you’re not only a universalist and an Arian but also a Pelagian.

If refuting the concept man can naturally discern
right from wrong, be charitable, follow the Beatitudes
without knowing that is what he’s doing…
So you are propounding the concept then that there is no
salvation outside of the Church? Are you also
suggesting that the Jews are damned unless they convert
to Christianity?
In other words- God is not capable and has no desire
or will of His own to save someone who has never
heard of Him or the Bible? We have the right and obligation
to set rules like this for God?
A deaf, mute and blind person who has never committed
sin is automatically damned? Can’t be saved because
they never read or heard Scripture?
A child of a lost tribe in the Amazon- well, tough luck?
Really?

 

[Per_Crucem]

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

Where are the doctrinal judgments mentioned in Matthew 16? Where in Matthew 16 is it given to Peter’s successors in perpetuity? If Peter represents the apostles, then why aren’t the keys and the binding given to all of the apostles? Does Matthew 16 exclude the other apostles? If so, where does Jesus do that?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That would be God. But sure…He used the church as a secondary cause. I’m not denying that.

God - Jesus - promised that the Holy Spirit would instruct the Church. We see that happening in Acts 15, among other places.

Jesus’ words cannot strictly mean that the Holy Spirit would instruct individuals apart from the Church. To believe that would be tantamount to saying that He failed, since there are so many contradictory individual views among protestants.

So, yes, God did — through His Body, the Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Where are the doctrinal judgments mentioned in Matthew 16?

I guess you didn’t have any desire to read the linked article, or else you’d have seen that this relates to Isaiah 22. Any good, scripture-conversant and historically knowledgeable Jew of Jesus’ day would have understood the meaning of the Keys as designating the office of the Prime Minister (literally the “over the house”) in the Davidic Kingdom, and further that the Davidic Kingdom was the foreshadow and prototype (to understate it) of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Where in Matthew 16 is it given to Peter’s successors in perpetuity?

It was understood as a OFFICE. An office does not end when it’s holder dies.
Just as St. Peter understood Judas’ office (“Bishoprick” in the KJV) to carry on.

If Peter represents the apostles, then why aren’t the keys and the binding given to all of the apostles? Does Matthew 16 exclude the other apostles? If so, where does Jesus do that?

In the Davidic Kingdom, the Prime Minister was one single person. That was well understood, and should be today as well.

 

[commenter]

The church is a secondary cause in the sense that she receives the text. She doesn’t authorize it, or canonize it herself. It became canon when it was inspired. The revelation is the text itself.

You need to differentiate the role of the Magisterium from the role of individuals.

God is the cause of the NT Canon in the sense of inspiring the books, and intending these 27 books be included. All individual readers are the “recipients” or beneficiaries of the Canon, when they read it, and live it.

The role of the Church (or rather, the Magisterium) is different. The Magisterium was the publicly visible agency God chose to communicate His will. God’s will was not expressed through “the Church” if by that you mean the majority of Christians, or the majority of scholars, or common consent, public opinion, or whatever. It was expressed through an accepted, well documented teaching authority that Christians then (or now) could identify. It was trustworthy then. It is trustworthy now.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The church is a secondary cause in the sense that she receives the text. She doesn’t authorize it, or canonize it herself. It became canon when it was inspired. The revelation is the text itself.

No my friend. You need to study causality more.

God is the cause of all good.

However, the Church was before the New Testament and Israel was before the Old Testament.

The Church is the cause of the New Testament and Israel is the cause of the Old Testament. Both being led by God.

The order is: God causes the Church causes the New Testament.

The Church already was before a single word of the New Testament was penned.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If refuting the concept man can naturally discern
right from wrong, be charitable, follow the Beatitudes
without knowing that is what he’s doing…

And no one can.

So you are propounding the concept then that there is no
salvation outside of the Church? Are you also
suggesting that the Jews are damned unless they convert
to Christianity?

Yes.

In other words- God is not capable and has no desire
or will of His own to save someone who has never
heard of Him or the Bible?

Man has heard of God, and rejects Him. Salvation is only by faith in Christ, through His word and sacraments.

We have the right and obligation
to set rules like this for God?

God makes them explicit through His Word and apostles.

A deaf, mute and blind person who has never committed
sin is automatically damned? Can’t be saved because
they never read or heard Scripture?
A child of a lost tribe in the Amazon- well, tough luck?
Really?

If you can point to someone without sin, please do.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No my friend. You need to study causality more.

God is the cause of all good.

However, the Church was before the New Testament and Israel was before the Old Testament.

The Church is the cause of the New Testament and Israel is the cause of the Old Testament. Both being led by God.

The order is: God causes the Church causes the New Testament.

The Church already was before a single word of the New Testament was penned.

We’re talking about the text, however. Not revelation in and of itself. You’re correct that the church existed prior to the revelation being written. But we’re talking about the writing.

 

[Per_Crucem]

God - Jesus - promised that the Holy Spirit would instruct the Church. We see that happening in Acts 15, among other places.

Jesus’ words cannot strictly mean that the Holy Spirit would instruct individuals apart from the Church. To believe that would be tantamount to saying that He failed, since there are so many contradictory individual views among protestants.

And you. Or do you also believe the Orthodox are the one true infallible church, too? You aren’t the only one making those claims for your church body, you know.

 

[pablope]

The church is a secondary cause in the sense that she receives the text. She doesn’t authorize it, or canonize it herself. It became canon when it was inspired. The revelation is the text itself.

Then, can you define exactly where and when the canon became inspired?

 

[pablope]

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.”

Well…how would you know of the canon without this infallible authority?

 

[pablope]

And you. Or do you also believe the Orthodox are the one true infallible church, too? You aren’t the only one making those claims for your church body, you know.

The OC do not claim to be infallible.

Well…here is a question…if there is no one claiming to be infallible, or if everyone claims to have the truth…where would you go to determine the one truth?

Another question…do you think the Church or any church can ever err in its teachings on faith and morals?

 

[commenter]

Historical fact supports the Magisterium. The ancient Church had hundreds of potential “scriptures” with local congregations using different canons in the services, with scholars supporting or opposing different books as inspired or not inspired. You might say the decision process was guided by Tradition, but in ancient times there were hundreds of Christian traditions, some of which would support the Gospel of Thomas and/or oppose inclusion of the Gospel of John. Some entity had to decide which parts of Tradition are useful guides, and which not.

At some point a decision was made to prune Christian traditions down to the 1% that were considered reliable, Sacred Tradition. A decision was made to exclude from the NT the great majority of books that many, perhaps most Christian scholars and worship communities considered inspired, and limit the Canon to an astonishing few books, rather than the 270 book canon it could have been.

Does this highly disciplined process sound like something that could have come about by consensus, “one man, one vote”, by common agreement that somehow “emerged”? Or does it sound like a Magisterium that listened to everybody, then made decisions that were accepted by people in obedience?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well…how would you know of the canon without this infallible authority?

We wouldn’t, had the church not received it. It doesn’t require infallibility. Since the early councils were, even by Catholic theology, not infallible, then you don’t believe that infallibility is required either. Unless you hold that no one knew what Scripture was until the middle ages.

 

[Per_Crucem]

The OC do not claim to be infallible.

Of course they do.

Another question…do you think the Church or any church can ever err in its teachings on faith and morals?

Yes.

 

[marywarfield]

And no one can.

Yes.

Man has heard of God, and rejects Him. Salvation is only by faith in Christ, through His word and sacraments.

God makes them explicit through His Word and apostles.

If you can point to someone without sin, please do.

A. If you dispute one cannot naturally discern right or wrong then
you refute entirely the proofs of God known naturally
to man through reason - I.e. Plato and Aquinas.

C. Not all men have heard of God. Please provide
proof of your assertion.
D. Anyone God determines is without sin is sinless.
It is not required of me to find them without sin for
them to be so. But for someone to sin mortally
against God he would have had to a. Heard of God,
B. know Him, and c. intentionally act against Him knowing
it was wrong.
That’s true of everyone on the planet. Everyone.

 

[Per_Crucem]

A. If you dispute one cannot naturally discern right or wrong then
you refute entirely the proofs of God known naturally
to man through reason - I.e. Plato and Aquinas.

I don’t dispute that man can know God, generally, through reason or the natural world. Romans 1 says as much. I deny that man wants to know God, or obey Him.

C. Not all men have heard of God. Please provide
proof of your assertion.

Romans 1. And Thomas Aquinas, who you just cited!

D. Anyone God determines is without sin is sinless.
It is not required of me to find them without sin for
them to be so. But for someone to sin mortally
against God he would have had to a. Heard of God,
B. know Him, and c. intentionally act against Him knowing
it was wrong.
That’s true of everyone on the planet. Everyone.

There is an objective standard of sin. It’s the law. Everyone knows there’s a God, and everyone sins against Him.

 

[marywarfield]

There is an objective standard of sin. It’s the law. Everyone knows there’s a God, and everyone sins against Him.

I can’t say that actually. I haven’t met everyone…
So why would I judge they had sinned if I have never
met them?

And then there is the Holy Mother…she didn’t sin and being
Jewish didn’t read the New Testament and did not
know Christ until the Annunciation.

So no, I believe it’s possible there are those who do not know of
Christ yet don’t sin against Him.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I can’t say that actually. I haven’t met everyone…
So why would I judge they had sinned if I have never
met them?

God knows everyone. And God says that all have sinned.

And then there is the Holy Mother…she didn’t sin and being
Jewish didn’t read the New Testament and did not
know Christ until the Annunciation.

If the Blessed Virgin were without sin, then we know that because of revelation. Which would mean that God has informed us that she is sinless. She would be an exception. God has indicted the rest of humanity, however.

So no, I believe it’s possible there are those who do not know of
Christ yet don’t sin against Him.

Then we’re at an impasse, and you contradict the Scriptures. All have sinned. All means all.