The Rule of Scripture ("Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it)

[Standing Up]

The Catholic Church uses both leavened and unleavened bread -- it depends on the rite.

The more you know!

The fact is that Scripture is ambiguous between the synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John as to whether the 'last supper' took place on passover night, or the night before.

So Tradition is contradictory, messy, ill-defined? It's whatever someone decides because scripture is ambiguous?

Bread type is one example. How about what happened to Mary? EO says one thing, RC another, Epiphanius (the earliest reference) says we don't know. Scripture is silent.

So, how does this Tradition and Scripture thingy work together?

You said the bible and church don't contradict. I guess if you're defining church as the roman church and how it alone reads scripture, then I guess you're right.

 

[fhansen]

The point is people bring up Arius as if to show that scripture alone isn't sufficient to determine truth or the faith once delivered. They do this to try to support some combination of scripture/tradition.

Are you asserting that people who claim to rely on scripture alone never disagree on essentials? JWs claim to reason from Scripture alone and use the same verses as Arians to support their beliefs. Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration use the same verses as Catholics, etc.

Again, no where does Athanasius mention a tradition. He uses scripture alone to prove his point.

So what? Most Catholic apologists rely mainly or solely on scripture-tradition is unwritten unless recorded elsewhere. Do you deny that the teachings or traditions Paul wrote about in 2 Thess would've been authoritative/revelation?

 

[Standing Up]

Are you asserting that people who claim to rely on scripture alone never disagree on essentials? JWs claim to reason from Scripture alone and use the same verses as Arians to support their beliefs. Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration use the same verses as Catholics, etc.

People disagree all the time. But not on the essentials. Jesus born in the flesh from a virgin, lived, died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, and will come again. Love your neighbor.

You brought up Arias as a tool against SS. The fact is Arius' belief came out from a tradition, not scripture. Afterward, he used scripture.

What you need to find is Athanasius quoting tradition for his opposite point. But, he doesn't. Athanasius uses SS. Athanasius prevailed.

It's just an example. There's all sorts of examples of things that people believe came out from scripture and then intertwined with tradition. The fact is most of it is just the opposite. It came from tradition and then people tried to use scripture to defend their tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

So what? Most Catholic apologists rely mainly or solely on scripture-tradition is unwritten unless recorded elsewhere. Do you deny that the teachings or traditions Paul wrote about in 2 Thess would've been authoritative/revelation?

The problem is no one knows what those oral traditions are, except for the 3 Paul wrote down.

For example, if the assumption of Mary was an apostolic doctrine orally passed on, we wouldn't have Epiphanius saying, we don't know what happened to her.

PS. Obviously RC and EO and others all have their traditions and scriptures and doctrines. It's okay to deeply believe them as far as it goes. The problem is when it's forced onto others or there's some hint that other believers are somehow less than them.

 

[fhansen]

People disagree all the time. But not on the essentials. Jesus born in the flesh from a virgin, lived, died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day, ascended to heaven, and will come again. Love your neighbor.

Luther believed water baptism is an essential.

You brought up Arias as a tool against SS. The fact is Arius' belief came out from a tradition, not scripture. Afterward, he used scripture.

What you need to find is Athanasius quoting tradition for his opposite point. But, he doesn't. Athanasius uses SS. Athanasius prevailed.

The HS prevailed.

It's just an example. There's all sorts of examples of things that people believe came out from scripture and then intertwined with tradition. The fact is most of it is just the opposite. It came from tradition and then people tried to use scripture to defend their tradition.

No, it's simply intellectually dishonest to say that scripture is patently clear on the divinity of Jesus. And that's exactly what allowed Arianism to be so popular for so long even after Nicea.

 

[bbbbbbb]

OK, I'm not really sure what changed, tho.

Yes, but scripture is easily abused also. Arians past and present have quite plausible arguments for the non-deity of Jesus for example. And people have used the bible to justify all kinds of wrong acts down through time.

But there's really no definitive means of ascertaining whether scripture is true or not either-or of coming to complete consensus of the specific truths it holds even if we could definitively prove somehow that it contains truth. Both are a matter of faith IMO, enabled by grace.

When you have a body of literature containing specific allegations, its truth can be ascertained in light of external evidence which either sustains those allegations or denies them. Such is the case with the Bible which has, as its chief allegation, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This event was attested by over 500 eyewitnesses, not to mention other sources. Thus, there is an objective means of evaluating the veracity of the Bible.

Not so with an organization which claims itself as being the sole authority of truth and is unaccountable to any other. If said organization claims to have received its truth via oral means, who is to say that said truth is actual truth, especially if such truths (e.g. Purgatory) are unverifiable in nature?

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, a mature Catholic-an "authentic" one, IMO-has simply come to agree with the Church.

No, I became Christian by reading the bible, It was later -much later- that I was led to the CC.

Yes, each person will give an account to God based on what they did with what they knew.

You have yourself, another living authority interpreting scripture as you understand it- sometimes disagreeing with others who're doing the same thing, and also relying, consciously or not, on other authorities such as pastors and writers and denominational teachings, and creeds, and even the RCC since Protestant history traces its roots through her, too.

Most Catholics of my acquaintance are cradle Catholics who have been trained to accept with complete docility all the teachings of their church. Oddly, though, most of them reject many said teachings in practice, such as birth control methods.

Ultimately, the individual is responsible, not an organization which claims to proffer God's salvation based upon its own authority.

 

[Standing Up]

No, it's simply intellectually dishonest to say that scripture is patently clear on the divinity of Jesus. And that's exactly what allowed Arianism to be so popular for so long even after Nicea.

That and the fact that the church had already abandoned other things handed down from apostles. IOW, Thomas knew---my Lord and my God. And handed it down. But by the time of Athanasius, well, we'd have to look at other issues to get a clearer picture of the big picture mess.

In any event, Athanasius used SS. Arius used tradition plus scripture. Is the picture getting clearer?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The very Scriptures you adore state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, so of course the Church is right. The problem you have is in discerning which Church is the one that Jesus started.

We know that the Church was started in the first century, and the only two churches which meet that criteria are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Do note, however, that for many centuries afterward, the only church mentioned by name is the Catholic Church. And after the schism in 1054, and after the Protestant movement, there is still only one Church that is known worldwide as the Catholic Church.

Actually, the Church that we are to follow with docility exhorts us to study the Scriptures -- and all of us find that the bible and the Church are in complete agreement.

God will reward men with eternal life or wrath according to their works (Romans 2), and the Church does not teach that it will stand in any individual's place on the day of judgment.

You appear to be quite ignorant of what the Church teaches, and of what Catholics believe.

When our Lord was asked by Pilate, "What is truth?" did He respond by affirming that the Church is truth? No, rather, earlier in His ministry, he Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) It seems peculiar in the extreme that our Lord had such a low view of your organization.

Your church does teach that its leader holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven which have been passed to him through other such leaders from Peter himself. It also teaches that its priests possess the authority to retain or remit sin and to allow or prevent individuals from entering heaven. It therefore has as its self-proclaimed responsibility the salvation or damnation of individuals. It also claims to have a Treasury of Merit which it can use to shorten one's time in Purgatory.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But how does this relate to your comparison of the RC to the LDS - it's a non sequitur.

And, for your illustration on its own terms, Eliot used a great many non-Christian sources in his poetry (the Bhagavad Gita comes to mind).

Is Eliot an "ECF" in your Church ? What is the actual relevance of your illustration Has anyone called the ECFs or Mr. Eliot [- "How unpleasant to meet Mr. Eliot ! (Whether his mouth be open or shut.)"] the same plane as Scripture ?


Your illustration points out the absurdity of your illustration.

Can you explain why you used T.S. Eliot as an illustration ? Why not Johnny Rotten, another notable Brit.

There is a great difference between revelation from God and textual analysis as a tool to "discover doctrine".

Jude is clear - the faith paradotheisē; the term for tradition.
Not text. Your argument here is with God, and His method.

I do find it helpful to discuss Mr. Eliot with you because you are familiar with his work. Joseph Smith, like Mr. Eliot, drew upon various non-Christian sources for his writings. Unlike Mr. Eliot, he claimed that they were inspired by God and that he received them orally. The followers of Mr. Smith continue to make that assertion and disclaim anything to the contrary as being from The Great Apostasy (all of Christendom).

The RCC claims that its leader continues to receive insight and revelation from God. In doing so, they have wandered farther from orthodoxy and not closer, as I am sure you agree. For example, in 1872 the RCC proclaimed the dogma of Papal infallibility. They base this dogma upon their understanding of Tradition. Apart from using scripture as the norma norms to ascertain the accuracy of such dogmatic claims, Christians are only left with "My church rejects what your church says - because our Tradition is better than yours. nyah, nyah, nyah."

BTW, I am unfamiliar with Mr. Rotten.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I do find it helpful to discuss Mr. Eliot with you because you are familiar with his work. Joseph Smith, like Mr. Eliot, drew upon various non-Christian sources for his writings. Unlike Mr. Eliot, he claimed that they were inspired by God and that he received them orally.

The followers of Mr. Smith continue to make that assertion and disclaim anything to the contrary as being from The Great Apostasy (all of Christendom).

BTW, I am unfamiliar with Mr. Rotten.

How bout the SDA's prophetess Ellen White and their bizarre view of Scriptures

http://www.christianforums.com/t3078067-47/#post24673636
Was Ellen White a prophetess or a hoax..

 

[bbbbbbb]

So God directly guides you, but no-one else
Or do the RC not seek understanding and wisdom like you do ?

The RC claim that their leadership seeks understanding and wisdom in the same way, but that the laity are not permitted to do so, especially if they come to any beliefs which contradict those of its leadership.

Ultimately, all Christians find their source of understanding and wisdom through the revelation of God, the Holy Spirit, and the written Word of God. The difficulty is whether or not this is personal or impersonal (i.e. via some indirect means as Church dogma).

 

[fhansen]

When you have a body of literature containing specific allegations, its truth can be ascertained in light of external evidence which either sustains those allegations or denies them. Such is the case with the Bible which has, as its chief allegation, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This event was attested by over 500 eyewitnesses, not to mention other sources. Thus, there is an objective means of evaluating the veracity of the Bible.

Not so with an organization which claims itself as being the sole authority of truth and is unaccountable to any other. If said organization claims to have received its truth via oral means, who is to say that said truth is actual truth, especially if such truths (e.g. Purgatory) are unverifiable in nature?

Most of Christianities' major claims are unverifiable in nature-that's what revelation is all about. And people use many sources to support the veracity of the claim for Jesus' resurrection. Some of them are extra-biblical, such as our knowledge of the Apostles' martyrdoms. But either way, there are no 100% conclusive means to determine the bibles veracity or that the supernatural claims weren't wholesale fabrication. There are only what theologians sometimes refer to as "motives of credibility". In the end there is no way we can believe in the resurrection without the aid of grace.

In any case, scripture cannot and doesn't even need to fulfill the role you want it to play. Martyrs and others obviously knew the faith without the benefit of reading the NT and were willing to die for that faith. The early Church knew the faith and continued to carry and proclaim it through the centuries. People read scripture all the time and come up with a variety of ideas about what it's trying to tell them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Most of Christianities' major claims are unverifiable in nature-that's what revelation is all about. And people use many sources to support the veracity of the claim for Jesus' resurrection. Some of them are extra-biblical, such as our knowledge of the Apostles' martyrdoms. But either way, there are no 100% conclusive means to determine the bibles veracity or that the supernatural claims weren't wholesale fabrication. There are only what theologians sometimes refer to as "motives of credibility". In the end there is no way we can believe in the resurrection without the aid of grace.

In any case, scripture cannot and doesn't even need to fulfill the role you want it to play. Martyrs and others obviously knew the faith without the benefit of reading the NT and were willing to die for that faith. The early Church knew the faith and continued to carry and proclaim it through the centuries. People read scripture all the time and come up with a variety of ideas about what it's trying to tell them.

Ya think?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

KJV) Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God".
John 5:39 "Ye are searching the Writings that ye are seeming in them Life age-during to be having, and those are the ones-testifying about Me".

2 Peter 3:15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul--according to the wisdom given to him--did write to you
16 As also in all the letters, speaking in them about these-things,in which is difficult-to-understand, whoany which the unlearned and unsteadfast are wresting/twisting/streblousin <4761> (5719) as also the rests of Writings, toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684

 

[fhansen]

That and the fact that the church had already abandoned other things handed down from apostles. IOW, Thomas knew---my Lord and my God. And handed it down. But by the time of Athanasius, well, we'd have to look at other issues to get a clearer picture of the big picture mess.

In any event, Athanasius used SS. Arius used tradition plus scripture. Is the picture getting clearer?

No, because Athanasius didn't crawl out from under a rock and pick up the bible and start reading it. He used scripture to support the tradition that was handed down to him, which developed the sensus fidelium by which he could discern the falsity of Arius' claims even without regard to scripture, and he used scripture to support that tradition of faith.

 

[ivebeenshown]

When our Lord was asked by Pilate, "What is truth?" did He respond by affirming that the Church is truth? No, rather, earlier in His ministry, he Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) It seems peculiar in the extreme that our Lord had such a low view of your organization.

I wouldn't say that the Church is truth, either. Rather, in agreement with the Word of God, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, while Jesus Christ is the truth.

The Lord must not have a very low view of the Church to call it the pillar and foundation of truth.

Your church does teach that its leader holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven which have been passed to him through other such leaders from Peter himself.

Right, it does teach that. The Word of God says that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, and the Word of God also shows that when someone who holds an episcopal office dies, someone else is elected to take that position (Acts 1.)

It also teaches that its priests possess the authority to retain or remit sin and to allow or prevent individuals from entering heaven. It therefore has as its self-proclaimed responsibility the salvation or damnation of individuals.

The Word of God says that Jesus gave the authority to retain or remit sin to the Apostles. The Apostles then elected other men to hold an episcopal office with certain duties and authority.

It also claims to have a Treasury of Merit which it can use to shorten one's time in Purgatory.

Yes it does. It also teaches that Christ is the source of all merits before God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, because Athanasius didn't crawl out from under a rock and pick up the bible and start reading it. He used scripture to support the tradition that was handed down to him, which developed the sensus fidelium by which he could discern the falsity of Arius' claims even without regard to scripture, and he used scripture to support that tradition of faith.

Which bible version did he use?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7356783-2/#post51276720
The One Reading.....

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the Prophecy and keepings the in it having been written, for the time nigh.

 

[fhansen]

Ya think?

Yes, I think. Do you have anything to offer other than verses that refer to "reformers" et al?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, I think. Do you have anything to offer other than verses that refer to "reformers" et al?

Whadaya got against them?

 

[fhansen]

Whadaya got against them?

sorry, been in a cranky mood lately. coulda been more charitable