Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
Well of course. The exchange has been over the relative merits of each sides views. I think we more or less know where the two sides stand.

If there was some misunderstanding about that, let me correct it. Holy Tradition is not folklore, but it creates dogma on the basis of folklore, custom, or opinion.

It might...but often it does not. And it doesn't necessarily even rely upon tradition, either, but just something from the past, whether or not there is a real tradition of it being believed continuously by the people of God.

Always? Whether or not that is true, what matters is whether or not that is a correct understanding of the meaning of the verse. It really cannot be.

You're wrong about Holy Tradition. Never on the basis of folklore, custom, or opinion.

Regarding your last, you're saying that ST. Paul didn't have correct understanding? The Church has always taught, from the beginning, what the correct understanding of Scripture is. That's what the Church is and does. That some people later on came in and decided it was different is only important to those people.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
Well of course. The exchange has been over the relative merits of each sides views. I think we more or less know where the two sides stand.

If there was some misunderstanding about that, let me correct it. Holy Tradition is not folklore, but it creates dogma on the basis of folklore, custom, or opinion.

It might...but often it does not. And it doesn't necessarily even rely upon tradition, either, but just something from the past, whether or not there is a real tradition of it being believed continuously by the people of God.

Always? Whether or not that is true, what matters is whether or not that is a correct understanding of the meaning of the verse. It really cannot be.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

AnticipateHisComing said:
I couldn't help but point out your post calling attention to what Paul "wrote". To answer your question I can say with 100% certainty, that Paul taught what is recorded in his letters tabulated in the Bible. Further what God wanted recorded in scripture from Paul has been recorded.

To use the words of St. John, all the books in the world couldn't contain all that was said and done. St. Paul's letters are a subset of what he said and did.

So you quote scripture to answer my question of something not in scripture. You think scripture not sufficient to explain itself? Why would God give us incomplete scripture? Regardless of your opinion, many including Catholics argue their doctrine on the Lord's Supper with scripture.

I KNOW Scripture isn't sufficient to explain itself. Hence, what is meant by John 6?

Lastly, do you speak for yourself, or your church? I am pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not think Baptists incapable of salvation for their communion practice.

I don't 'speak for' the Church, I have no authority. We leave it to God to determine who is and who is not saved, Catholic or otherwise.

There is a table of contents in my Bible. So at worst, it is no longer a tradition regardless of if you at one time call that a "tradition".

Before there was an official Canon of Scripture, at the Council of Trent, the TOC was Sacred Tradition, and it still is. Your TOC is different than ours.

But again, even with your argument, if it was a tradition, you think I miss out on salvation for not having the same table of contents as you? Don't think that is official Catholic doctrine.

Except that the books we have that you don't contain the foundation to Catholic doctrine. But again, we leave it to God to tell us who's in His friendship.

Does you doctrine of the Trinity insist on the Athanasian Creed? Do you really think all that don't profess that creed are going to hell?

I don't know anything about who is in hell. That's way above my paygrade. But the doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture alone.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Bible2+ said:
Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, note that sola scriptura shows that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 1:23). And He is uncreated God, just as God the Father is uncreated God. For everything created was created by Jesus (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Because Jesus is uncreated, there was never a time when He was not. He has always existed. He is YHWH the Holy One, from everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12a, Acts 3:14, Micah 5:2c). He is YHWH the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Titus 2:13), YHWH the good shepherd (Psalms 23:1, John 10:11, Mark 10:18), YHWH who will set His feet on the Mount of Olives at His return (Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12), YHWH the first and last (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 2:8), YHWH the great I AM (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58), the great God (Titus 2:13), the mighty God (Isaiah 9:6), one God with God the Father (John 10:30, John 20:28), equal in divinity with God the Father (Philippians 2:6).

Just as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) is the three distinct, coexisting Persons (Mark 1:9-11) of God the Father (Galatians 1:3), God the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and God the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19-20; Acts 5:3-4), so the Trinity is YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, and YHWH the Holy Spirit. For YHWH is the only God (Isaiah 45:5-6). He has always been and forever will be the only God (Isaiah 43:10b).

What you said above is what Scripture says. But in the early Church, they argued about what it meant. And what they came to agree on is Sacred Tradition. From the CCC:
During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

What is meant is what is said.

That is, sola scriptura shows in John 6:53-57 that all Christians, for their ultimate salvation, must eat the bread of Communion (Matthew 26:26), and drink the wine of Communion (Matthew 26:27-29), which actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:27-30), in some spiritual manner (John 6:63).

I won't speak to the fact that all Christians are not in Communion. But I will say that there is a lot of disagreement about what John 6 means, but the Early Church wrote extensively about it, that it is really the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ present in the Eucharist, just to be brief.

"Discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29) means that when Christians partake of Communion (1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they must discern that the bread and wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (John 6:53-56) in some spiritual manner (John 6:63), or they may suffer the consequences, even in the here and now (1 Corinthians 11:30).

And yet, few, even few Catholics, actually believe that Jesus is really present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist. Which is prayed for by a consecrated priest.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
You're wrong about Holy Tradition. Never on the basis of folklore, custom, or opinion.

Certainly it is! And I have given a number of examples of that in various threads on this particular subject. For just one example, there is the Assumption of Mary.

That dogma is based entirely upon a legend and the accompanying speculation (and not a legend that is particularly compelling, either, since no one knows where she was buried and there are numerous locations claimed by one group of Christians or another).

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
Once again, Sola Scriptura does not guarantee that every reader will understand Scripture. For that matter, neither does following Tradition or a religious guru instead.

The issue with Sola Scriptura is solely this: WHAT IS the AUTHORITY, the final word, the deciding information, when it comes to defining essential doctrine?

I agree with this. Sola Scriptura says that the individual is the authority that that individual must use to define doctrine for that individual. The Catholic way, Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium, means there is a final authority, given to us by Christ.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
I agree with this. Sola Scriptura says that the individual is the authority that that individual must use to define doctrine for that individual.

It does not posit that every individual reader is to take whatever meaning from Scripture he thinks is there, let alone that all opinions are equally valid.

Both of those claims are often made by people who oppose Sola Scriptura, but neither is correct or part of the concept that is known as Sola Scriptura..

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
Certainly it is! And I have given a number of examples of that in various threads on this particular subject. For just one example, there is the Assumption of Mary.

That dogma is based entirely upon a legend and the accompanying speculation (and not a legend that is particularly compelling, either, since no one knows where she was buried and there are numerous locations claimed by one group of Christians or another).

The Assumption of Mary is based on Scripture for precedent, and eye witnesses, along with lack of a body. But also, Revelation 12 describes a woman, alive (with a crown on her head and the moon under her feet) and in heaven. The other characters in the scene are Jesus, the Devil and the Archangel Michael. So the woman is Mary. Also, just prior to Revelation 12, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.
So, not legends, or myths. Firmly based on Scripture.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
It does not posit that every individual reader is to take whatever meaning from Scripture he thinks is there, let alone that all opinions are equally valid.

Both of those claims are often made by people who oppose Sola Scriptura, but neither is correct or part of the concept that is known as Sola Scriptura..

And yet it does not name an authority. Christ named an authority, who was to be His vicar after he was crucified.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
The Assumption of Mary is based on Scripture for precedent

No, it isn't. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches the Assumption, and the official position of the Catholic Church is that it does not know if she was taken to heaven while alive or after her burial, so that's not much of a dogma right there.

But also, Revelation 12 describes a woman, alive (with a crown on her head and the moon under her feet) and in heaven. The other characters in the scene are Jesus, the Devil and the Archangel Michael. So the woman is Mary. Also, just prior to Revelation 12, we see the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.
So, not legends, or myths. Firmly based on Scripture.

That kind of reasoning would make everything seen by John in his vision be physical--angels, beasts, Satan, etc.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
And yet it does not name an authority. Christ named an authority, who was to be His vicar after he was crucified.

absolutely, it does. When it comes to the church deciding essential doctrine, Scripture is the authority. The rest--popes, vicars, church conventions, etc.--are not the authority in themselves, but are the interpreters of it. The question really is, To what do those people turn when determining essential doctrine?

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
No, it isn't. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches the Assumption, and the official position of the Catholic Church is that it does not know if she was taken to heaven while alive or after her burial, so that's not much of a dogma right there.

Elijah was assumed into heaven. But I never said anything about Mary being assumed alive or dead. But in heaven the saints are alive.

That kind of reasoning would make everything seen by John in his vision be physical--angels, beasts, Satan, etc.

Not physical, but real. No saint in heaven has physical features now, nor angels, for that matter. But the woman is described in heaven with a head and feet. She is physical, as is the child she gave birth to.

Anyway, this is just your opinion vs the Truth of the Catholic Church. And your opinion is as good as mine, but of no consequence to what the Church holds to be true.

fhansen · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
absolutely, it does. When it comes to the church deciding essential doctrine, Scripture is the authority.

There's absolutely no reason to presume this. Especially when concurrence on significant doctrine is difficult if not impossible in many cases, going by Scripture alone.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
absolutely, it does. When it comes to the church deciding essential doctrine, Scripture is the authority. The rest--popes, vicars, church conventions, etc.--are not the authority in themselves, but are the interpreters of it. The question really is, To what do those people turn when determining essential doctrine?

According to Christ, the Church is the authority, and those He put in charge of it. To answer your question, Catholics turn to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, the authority of the Church.

fhansen · Apr 18, 2018

deleted

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Elijah was assumed into heaven. But I never said anything about Mary being assumed alive or dead. But in heaven the saints are alive.Not physical, but real. No saint in heaven has physical features now, nor angels, for that matter. But the woman is described in heaven with a head and feet. She is physical, as is the child she gave birth to.

EVERY being in Revelation is described in physical terms. John himself said that the vision was just that--what he saw..

Anyway, this is just your opinion vs the Truth of the Catholic Church.

Or... it is Truth of many other Christian churches vs your opinion.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

fhansen said:
There's absolutely no reason to presume this.

Presume? Is it not the case that your own church considers the Bible to be divine revelation? Yes, it does.

Root of Jesse · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
EVERY being in Revelation is described in physical terms. John himself said that the vision was just that--what he saw..

Or... it is Truth of many other Christian churches vs your opinion.

Well I don't have an opinion. I believe my Church has the Truth, and it's one I've come to believe, not something I grew up with.

Are you trying to say that John's vision wasn't real? So there's no Satan, no child, no woman, really, right? No. While there are different levels of interpretation for any Scripture, first we must take it literally, meaning the way the author intended it to be read. (Dan Brown, for example, intended his Davinci Code to be fiction, not taken as fact). John's vision is what he saw happening, and the only persons he describes in real terms are Jesus and the woman who gave birth to Him, Mary. Alive and bodily in heaven.

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

Root of Jesse said:
Well I don't have an opinion.

Well, I am not making up the information that I pass along here, either.

fhansen · Apr 18, 2018

Albion said:
Presume? Is it not the case that your own church considers the Bible to be divine revelation? Yes, it does.

But it doesn't presume this: "When it comes to the church deciding essential doctrine, Scripture is the authority."

Albion · Apr 18, 2018

OK, but it is not a mere presumption like Holy Tradition is. The Bible itself testifies to its authorship and also that it is of ultimate value for knowing the Almighty's will.

Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Oldbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Oldbie

Facilitator

Facilitator

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Facilitator

Oldbie

Facilitator

Similar threads