Why sola Scriptura?

[Charlemagne_II]

**Contarini

Sure it is. Scripture is the Word of God (as is Sacred Tradition). The Church recognizes and submits to the authority of the Word.**

How is that possible when the Word of God was first preached by the Church, not by scripture? Yes, the Word of God is recognized by the Church in Scripture and the Church submits to it, but it does so only by its own infallible authority first and foremost to decide what truly is the Word of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Contarini

That’s a remarkably silly argument, and I continue to marvel at its popularity. All the books existed, and all the books were regarded as divinely inspired by some (probably most) Christians long before the fourth century. The question of the limits of the NT was not fully settled until the fourth century. But that’s quite different from the NT not existing.**

Go back and read what I said, if you dare!

I said the New Testament** “as we know it”** did not exist until the 4th Century.

Please don’t embarrass yourself with flinging foolish statements all over the place.

The Church existed before the Scripture. All of the Gospels were written long after the death of Jesus. All authority was lodged in the Word of God, yes, but the Church had the authority to preach the Word of God. The Scriptures did not write themselves!

Behave yourself!!!

 

[Contarini]

**Contarini

Sure it is. Scripture is the Word of God (as is Sacred Tradition). The Church recognizes and submits to the authority of the Word.**

How is that possible when the Word of God was first preached by the Church, not by scripture?

How is that relevant? The Church receives the Word of God and proclaims it. The Church does not stand in judgment on the Word or rule over it.

Yes, the Word of God is recognized by the Church in Scripture and the Church submits to it, but it does so only by its own infallible authority first and foremost to decide what truly is the Word of God.

Not exactly “its own authority.” The authority comes from God, as does the Word. Indeed, the authority comes from the Word (which, again, includes Scripture as well as Tradition). But I agree that the Church has the authority to determine (i.e., to recognize and declare authoritatively what it has recognized) what is and is not the Word of God.

I don’t think we basically disagree. I just don’t get why you and many other Catholics want to use this language of the Church having authority over Scripture, when that isn’t warranted by official Church teaching (again, see Dei Verbum) and makes it sound as if the Church can just do whatever the heck it wants. thus scandalizing Protestants and weakening one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**Contarini

That’s a remarkably silly argument, and I continue to marvel at its popularity. All the books existed, and all the books were regarded as divinely inspired by some (probably most) Christians long before the fourth century. The question of the limits of the NT was not fully settled until the fourth century. But that’s quite different from the NT not existing.**

Go back and read what I said, if you dare!

I said the New Testament** “as we know it”** did not exist until the 4th Century.

But all the books were there and recognized by Christians. So yes, the NT as we know it did exist.

Please don’t embarrass yourself with flinging foolish statements all over the place.

Clearly we differ on who is doing that

The Church existed before the Scripture.

Before NT Scripture, indeed. How is that relevant?

All of the Gospels were written long after the death of Jesus. All authority was lodged in the Word of God, yes, but the Church had the authority to preach the Word of God. The Scriptures did not write themselves!

No disagreement.

Behave yourself!!!

You need to show how I am wrong. You have not done that. Nothing I am saying is illogical or unorthodox, and you repeatedly fail even to address my arguments. You appear fixated on this unfortunate rhetorical strategy. It’s like an addiction for some Catholic apologists, I suppose because it’s a strong rhetorical response to the standard Protestant claims regarding Biblical authority. The problem is that it isn’t either rational or orthodox.

Edwin

 

[KP3243]

Sure it is. Scripture is the Word of God (as is Sacred Tradition). The Church recognizes and submits to the authority of the Word. It’s all in Dei Verbum

The unfortunate arguments of papal canon lawyers from the Reformation era are still alive and well, though they should have been buried with a stake through the heart centuries ago.

Edwin

Pretty sure Dei Verbum says this: 23. The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men’s hearts on fire with the love of God. (1) The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor. (2)

 

[KP3243]

I don’t see how this is a response to what Novocastrian said.

He said the church cannot change what scripture teaches on faith, someone has to have changed what the word of God meant because some people believe in the true presence some don’t but both claim to be disciples of Jesus someone has to be wrong here, I’ll take tradition and the early Church Fathers to back up my claim.

 

[Contarini]

He said the church cannot change what scripture teaches on faith, someone has to have changed what the word of God meant because some people believe in the true presence some don’t but both claim to be disciples of Jesus someone has to be wrong here, I’ll take tradition and the early Church Fathers to back up my claim.

I see. So your point is that his statement works against Protestantism? I agree with that.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Pretty sure Dei Verbum says this: 23. The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men’s hearts on fire with the love of God. (1) The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor. (2)

Yes. How does this contradict what I said?

Edwin

 

[KP3243]

Yes. How does this contradict what I said?

Edwin

The Catholic Church is the authority of how scripture should be interpreted I suspect you will disagree with this.

 

[KP3243]

I see. So your point is that his statement works against Protestantism? I agree with that.

Edwin

There was more in the conversation my overall point was that we have absolute chaos going on when it comes to interpreting scripture, it isn’t possible that God would be telling Catholics one thing, Baptists another thing, Lutherans another thing, Methodists another thing, Jehovah witnesses another thing, Mormons another thing, Presbyterians another thing, Fundamentalists another thing, Pentecostals another thing, Episcopalians another thing, the Russian Orthodox another thing, In my very finite human mind, using logic the only thing I can rationalize is that making a single authority over scripture has to be the only thing that makes sense and stops division. I just look at 2000 years, 266 successors after Saint Peter and the fact all 1.5 billion of us no matter where we are in the world will have the exact same mass readings for the day, the same order of the mass and could go to mass anywhere in the world and be perfectly at home at the mass, I can’t ignore that the Catholic Church is extraordinarily well planned out, we are either Divine or an organizational genius. Then you have to ask why Rome and not Jerusalem which makes so much more sense than Rome until you see how scripturally based Rome is and that it was intended to be Rome since the beginning of the world and foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[ufamtobie]

Sure my eggs in all in one basket - Christ the crucified. And through His Church I receive the means of grace, in the sacraments, by His word, just as you do.

Jon

JonNC,

“Just as you do” not quite! Your eggs in your basket are a bit cracked and leaking yolk! Christ Crucified wants you in His Church to receive the means of grace, and Sacraments not through His Church, as you stated above.

However, through Gods love for non-catholics what you say is true “Through His Church” aka Catholic Church is how you are at the moment receiving grace, to be saved but then again, you frankly Reject the Catholic Church teachings.(Scary!)

Christ Crucified and His Church cannot be separated, therefore we must have Christ Crucified and be in His One Church He established.

Jesus Christ, is the Groom, His one Church is His Bride any other church is a church that want to break up a marriage.

Thanks to you JonNC, I feel like making me some scrambled eggs, add a little salsa verde, mmm

Ufam Tobie

 

[JonNC]

=KP3243;11242844]There was more in the conversation my overall point was that we have absolute chaos going on when it comes to interpreting scripture, it isn’t possible that God would be telling Catholics one thing, Baptists another thing, Lutherans another thing, Methodists another thing, Jehovah witnesses another thing, Mormons another thing, Presbyterians another thing, Fundamentalists another thing, Pentecostals another thing, Episcopalians another thing, the Russian Orthodox another thing,

I would contend that the Holy Spirit is not telling something different to each of the groups you mentioned. It does seem, however, that each group is hearing things differently.

In my very finite human mind, using logic the only thing I can rationalize is that making a single authority over scripture has to be the only thing that makes sense and stops division. I just look at 2000 years, 266 successors after Saint Peter and the fact all 1.5 billion of us no matter where we are in the world will have the exact same mass readings for the day, the same order of the mass and could go to mass anywhere in the world and be perfectly at home at the mass, I can’t ignore that the Catholic Church is extraordinarily well planned out, we are either Divine or an organizational genius. Then you have to ask why Rome and not Jerusalem which makes so much more sense than Rome until you see how scripturally based Rome is and that it was intended to be Rome since the beginning of the world and foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures.

It truly is remarkable, though the last sentence is considerably overstated, IMO. That said, and speaking honestly and without malice, the claim of supremacy over the Church Militant seems to be the biggest issue that divides.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church is the authority of how scripture should be interpreted I suspect you will disagree with this.

You didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask “what in this statement contradicts what you suspect I believe,” but “what I said.” I made specific claims. Agree with them or disagree with them, but don’t drag your suspicions into it.

As it happens, your suspicions are wrong in this case.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Contarini
**
But all the books were there and recognized by Christians. So yes, the NT as we know it did exist.**

The books were there but they were not assembled as the New Testament and given their authority as true Testaments until the 4th Century. Until the 4th Century the New Testament did not exist as we know it. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

 

[benjohnson]

Until the 4th Century the New Testament did not exist as we know it. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

The NT existed before that - it just wan’t labeled. Just as ‘new’ species exist before their discovery and taxonomy.

Frankly, I wish we would come to a better appreciation for those books that didn’t make the cut but sill may have some value in them for reflection if they are introduced with care and proper teaching.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The NT existed before that - it just wan’t labeled. Just as ‘new’ species exist before their discovery and taxonomy.

Yes, but along other books like: The Didache, the Shepperd of Hermas, Clement I, and others.

It wasn’t until much later that the 27 books we have now we singled out.

Which begs the question:

How do you know that those other books are not Scriptures?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**ben

Frankly, I wish we would come to a better appreciation for those books that didn’t make the cut but sill may have some value in them for reflection if they are introduced with care and proper teaching. **

Was the 4th century Church Council that finalized the selection of inspired texts infallible or was it not?

If it was not, then you might have a case to look into the other books.

If it was infallible, then what’s your beef? You want to discover something of value in those other books while at the same time risking more private interpretation of new heretical teachings and the creation of even more Protestant denominations than the thousands we already have?

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Isaiah

Which begs the question:

How do you know that those other books are not Scriptures? **

Exactly! We know they are not Scriptures by the infallible authority of the Church Council that chose the books.

 

[benjohnson]

If it was not, then you might have a case to look into the other books.

Are you aware what our Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers in Christ have in their Bibles?

You want to discover something of value in those other books while at the same time risking more private interpretation of new heretical teachings and the creation of even more Protestant denominations than the thousands we already have?

Please don’t project onto me. I have enough foibles as it is.

 

[benjohnson]

How do you know that those other books are not Scriptures?

The one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that I profess received the Gospel and made it available as inerrant Scripture.