Defining sola scriptura.

[Metal Minister]

Some may find this entertaining : http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/11/27/sola-scriptura-in-dialogue-vintage/

 

[Root of Jesse]

Some may find this entertaining : Sola Scriptura in Dialogue - Vintage - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Might be cool if it was readable...

 

[barryatlake]

Biblical Teaching on the Bible- Source;" Catholics United for the Faith"

The first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42; cf. 2 Tim. 1:14) long before the New Testament was written—and centuries before the New Testament canon was settled. The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is “preached” (1 Pet. 1:25), that the Apostles’ successors were to teach what they have “heard” (2 Tim. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both “by word of mouth [and] by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2). Not everything Christ did is recorded in sacred Scripture (Jn. 21:25).

New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels.

Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16).

Christ left a Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Mt. 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk. 10:16). The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church’s teaching from corruption (Mt. 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn. 14:16).

The Church—and not the Bible alone—is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

The Bible does not refer to Scripture as the exclusive source of the Word of God. Jesus Himself is the Word (Jn. 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thess 2:13, St. Paul’s first epistle, he refers to “the Word of God which you heard from us.” There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching: Tradition

In fact, what this and similar texts warn against is the addition of human wisdom to the Word of God. Scripture does not claim that God can only hand down revelation in written form. If God chose to reveal Himself further after the writing of Deuteronomy, and He did, or chooses to reveal Himself through some means other than writing—and He did, notably in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ—then the prohibition of Deut. 4:2 does not apply.

 

[Metal Minister]

Biblical Teaching on the Bible- Source;" Catholics United for the Faith"

The first Christians “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2:42; cf. 2 Tim. 1:14) long before the New Testament was written—and centuries before the New Testament canon was settled. The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is “preached” (1 Pet. 1:25), that the Apostles’ successors were to teach what they have “heard” (2 Tim. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both “by word of mouth [and] by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2). Not everything Christ did is recorded in sacred Scripture (Jn. 21:25).

New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels.

Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16).

Christ left a Church with divine authority to teach in His name (Mt. 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk. 10:16). The Church will last until the end of time, and the Holy Spirit protects the Church’s teaching from corruption (Mt. 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn. 14:16).

The Church—and not the Bible alone—is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

The Bible does not refer to Scripture as the exclusive source of the Word of God. Jesus Himself is the Word (Jn. 1:1, 14), and in 1 Thess 2:13, St. Paul’s first epistle, he refers to “the Word of God which you heard from us.” There St. Paul is clearly referring to oral apostolic teaching: Tradition

In fact, what this and similar texts warn against is the addition of human wisdom to the Word of God. Scripture does not claim that God can only hand down revelation in written form. If God chose to reveal Himself further after the writing of Deuteronomy, and He did, or chooses to reveal Himself through some means other than writing—and He did, notably in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ—then the prohibition of Deut. 4:2 does not apply.

Still one hand clapping. That isn't the way you learn or grow. If you can't be bothered to see the other side, I can't be bothered to respond...

 

[concretecamper]

Still one hand clapping. That isn't the way you learn or grow. If you can't be bothered to see the other side, I can't be bothered to respond...

I have actually learned a lot as a result of this thread. The reasearch I have done as a result yielded numerous distict definitions. I am able to see the other sideS.

 

[abacabb3]

Simple question: Is there any extra bibilical writing that makes the claim that it is "God-breathed" as the Scripture does regarding itself?

 

[Metal Minister]

I have actually learned a lot as a result of this thread. The reasearch I have done as a result yielded numerous distict definitions. I am able to see the other sideS.

Then by the above, I know you haven't. Even your fellow Catholics have admitted that the definition is quite well set across numerous sources.

 

[concretecamper]

Then by the above, I know you haven't. Even your fellow Catholics have admitted that the definition is quite well set across numerous sources.

Some sources maybe, but many differ, as we all know

 

[tadoflamb]

More like rule. "Sola Scriptura is the sole infallible rule of faith..."

I'm going to be so bold as to correct you a tad bit. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the bible as the sole rule in determining doctrine. It's not a rule, it's a practice. The bible is the rule.

(see post #11)

 

[tadoflamb]

Then by the above, I know you haven't. Even your fellow Catholics have admitted that the definition is quite well set across numerous sources.

Don't count me as one of them. So far, I've seen it called a principle, praxis, teaching, doctrine, methodology and an ideology. You may now add 'rule' to that list.

 

[tadoflamb]

Simple question: Is there any extra bibilical writing that makes the claim that it is "God-breathed" as the Scripture does regarding itself?

No.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not teach the Marian dogmas, papal supremacy or infallibility, transubstantiation, indulgences, etc. I teach what is found within the pages of scripture that everyone accepts, not the additional books the RCC added to prop up some of the above doctrines. Beyond that you need to be more specific. I'm honestly not going to dig back through this thread for the context of your quote of me. I do not have the time.

I suppose it is comforting to have a fantasy history. One that fits all the things that one wishes were true so that nothing from reality would upset one's perspectives.

One might enjoy this video clip ... canvassing, as it does, some fantasy history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsIoiWO96JI

 

[abacabb3]

No.

Is there any extra-Biblical writing that is for all intents and purposes, guarenteed to be inerrant?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is there any extra-Biblical writing that is for all intents and purposes, guarenteed to be inerrant?

Yes, the canons of the council of Trent

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, the canons of the council of Trent

This might be a stupid question, but how could something be inerrant if it is not also God-breathed?

 

[tadoflamb]

Is there any extra-Biblical writing that is for all intents and purposes, guarenteed to be inerrant?

There's infallible statements.

 

[abacabb3]

There's infallible statements.

I'll refer to the above: http://www.christianforums.com/t7868361-18/#post67125665

I have serious trouble understanding on what authority I can be sure any statement is true, unless that statement actually proceeds from God Himself. As far as I am aware, the Scripture alone meets that standard, but I am open to hearing what you have to say.

God bless,
Craig

 

[MoreCoffee]

This might be a stupid question, but how could something be inerrant if it is not also God-breathed?

Technically, it is not inerrant, that is a property of holy scripture. It is infallible. But being infallible has a net effect not unlike inerrancy as inerrancy is understood in a document like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

As for being inspired (God breathed if you prefer), only holy scripture is inspired by God. Holy scripture is public revelation from God while the decrees of the council of Trent are not public revelation from God. Trent's canons are teaching both of the truths of the Christian religion and against heresies and errors circulating among christians at the time. It is infallibly true and accurate in what it says of the things about which it speaks in the context of the culture and history in which it was written. Holy scripture is similarly true and accurate in what it says of the things about which it speaks in the context of the culture and history in which it was written which explains why so much effort is put into reading the holy scriptures with context in mind and also why so much effort is put into studying the ancient languages in which the scriptures were written.

Have you read Dei Verbum, it is not a very long document - one can read it in 30 minutes. Click this link if you want to read it, I am sure it will explain a great deal about Catholic teaching on holy scripture.

 

[tadoflamb]

I'll refer to the above: http://www.christianforums.com/t7868361-18/#post67125665

I have serious trouble understanding on what authority I can be sure any statement is true, unless that statement actually proceeds from God Himself. As far as I am aware, the Scripture alone meets that standard, but I am open to hearing what you have to say.

God bless,
Craig

Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

That's where you get these kind of infallible statements:

45. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence. (De fide

Dogmas Of The Catholic Faith

 

[Metal Minister]

Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church.

That's where you get these kind of infallible statements:

Dogmas Of The Catholic Faith

So because the pope and magesteriums agree to something plainly taught in Scripture, only then it's infallible? Gee what a revelation! Something from the infallible scripture is affirmed as infallible! It must mean the whole system is infallible! /sarcasm