Defining sola scriptura.

[Standing Up]

Topic- defining sola Scriptura;

Jesus fulfilled the laws and established His church which has existed since the Apostles and who still has Apostolic succession today, so unless we missed the second coming and Jesus established new laws and abolished the laws that the Catholic church still uses today during the Reformation, then the Catholic Church is the true Church Jesus established and things like the real presence in Eucharist is still the truth, there is no other way around it. No mere human can abolish what Jesus created. You cannot show up 1500 years later and claim that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist and the Bible is now the only authority you need. Jesus is the only one who can make changes like that, and you can not show me where Jesus said:...." bring your brother to a Bible instead of His Church......" { Matt.18: 15-18 ] to His Apostles not to a Bible Jesus said these words: "He who hears you, hears me..... " {Luke 10:16 } also, the following verses gives support in Apostolic Traditional Teaching { Matt.28:18- 20 } I will end this post showing why the Catholic/ Apostolic Church teaches that both Holy Scripture along with Holy Apostolic Traditional Teaching is necessary for the "Fullness of the Christian Faith " and that verse is {2nd Thess. 2:15 |} You non-Catholics "Bible-Alone" adherents simply reject certain verses and only cherry -pick one verse and that being {2nd Tim.3: 16-17 }
__________________

You're confusing from what do we teach and who may teach. IOW, you may go to church and be comfortable listening to your Magisterium's conclusions about Tradition, but many other Christians prefer to hear conclusions from Scripture alone.

Take again the example of Philip. Scripture says Philip used scripture to instruct the eunuch. It doesn't say Philip consulted Tradition, which didn't exist at the time, thus making your comment null and void.

2 Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What traditions were extant in Paul's time? Obviously Paul has not given a blank check to what would become RC to decide Traditions centuries later.

 

[Rick Otto]

We so easily confuse thrones and seats.

 

[abacabb3]

Canon law only rarely relates to some specific holy tradition. Canon law is much more often about cultural and other traditions. It's about ordering and regulating matters pertaining to principles such as marriage, baptism, confirmation, ordination, church courts and the like.

Yes, but be honest, I can pick out the Scripture calling it tradition, plus Early Church Fathers, Thomas Aquianas, and other theological heavy weights endorsing the practice. On what basis was this practice considered traditional for centuries, but not holy tradition?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We so easily confuse thrones and seats.

We should be so lucky.

Matthew 19:28
Yet Jesus said to them, `Verily I am saying to ye, that ye, the ones following to Me in the regeneration, whenever should be seating the Son of the Man on a throne of His glory,
ye also shall be sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of the Israel"

Revelation 20:4
And I perceived thrones, and they are seated on them,
and judgment was given to them and the souls ones having been "beheaded" thru the testimony of Jesus,

.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

LittleLambof Jesus, Jesus only formed one church and that one church was only formed on His apostles and not on any other man or woman with names as Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. Jesus never spent 3plus years with anybody else but His apostles and He taught them the Teachings of His Christian Faith. So if the names of any other man or women are not placed in the Bible while having churches formed on them, then they are not Apostolic. Jesus formed His Apostolic/Catholic Church to make sure that His teaching would be understood and applied correctly. All non-Catholic/Apostolic churches teach different from one another. They may call themselves Christians because they truly have barrowed some of the basic tenets of His One True Catholic and Apostolic Church, but not the "Fullness of the Faith"

Thanks for confirming the point of why the RC Denomination so passionately PROTESTS this practice..... as posted in # 11:



Why does the RC Denomination so passionately, so foundationally PROTEST this practice?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced as authoriative and/or normative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors reject accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. It itself insists that it itself individually is just SO very, very, very SPECIAL and POWERFUL that it itself alone must exempt it itself individually and exclusively from the entire issue of truth, accountability, norming.

From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself is unaccountable and that it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness and whatever it itself uniquely and currently says is just to be swallowed BECAUSE it itself individually and currently is saying it, then the entire issue of truth, of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue of truth has simply been abandoned and replaced by it itself with the issue of how SPECIAL it itself declares it itself to be - endowed with unmitigated, divine POWER - even to exempt itself from accountability.






.

 

[tadoflamb]

The bible has always had a way affirming itself to be the most authoritative for me, especially in light of how I saw the RCC and other denominations use them, and how horribly stained the personal histories within the Magesterium became.

But the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura that has been offered us says:

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us"

Have you been using the bible to norm your doctrines? Rendering private judgement after personal reading of the bible doesn't seem to be included in the definition offered.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

BHave you been using the bible to norm your doctrines? Rendering private judgement after personal reading of the bible doesn't seem to be included in the definition offered.

Please quote the definition. Then underline and/or embolden each of the following words in it: "private" "Judgement" "personal." Thank you.


I suspect that you simply are trying to entirely change the subject from the best norm to the issue of arbitration - and imposing the RCC's extreme, radical, individualism and institutionalism, it's rejection of the church, upon Protestants who do not accept this Catholic approach. Embracing the Rule of Scripture in the norming of disputed dogmas among us is embracing the Rule of Scripture in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. It has nothing to do with private anything..... nothing to do with judgements...... BTW, I agree with your rejection of the extreme, uber-individualism of the RCC: it's one of the reasons I left Catholicism. But let's return to the issue of this thread and reject all the passionate efforts to hijack and change the subject....



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks for confirming the point of why the RC Denomination so passionately PROTESTS this practice..... as posted in # 11:



Why does the RC Denomination so passionately, so foundationally PROTEST this practice?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced as authoriative and/or normative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the protestors reject accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually. It itself insists that it itself individually is just SO very, very, very SPECIAL and POWERFUL that it itself alone must exempt it itself individually and exclusively from the entire issue of truth, accountability, norming.

From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself is unaccountable and that it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness and whatever it itself uniquely and currently says is just to be swallowed BECAUSE it itself individually and currently is saying it, then the entire issue of truth, of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue of truth has simply been abandoned and replaced by it itself with the issue of how SPECIAL it itself declares it itself to be - endowed with unmitigated, divine POWER - even to exempt itself from accountability.






.

We reject no such thing. CJ. We reject the word ONLY. We know that God does not speak to us ONLY in Scripture, and we know who he does speak through, because Scripture actually tells us. Why do PROTESTANTS reject that God speaks to us through other means, and that we can know what those means are???

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why do PROTESTANTS reject that God speaks to us through other means, and that we can know what those means are???

Read post #11. You seem to be unaware of the topic here.





.

 

[Albion]

But the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura that has been offered us says:




Have you been using the bible to norm your doctrines? Rendering private judgement after personal reading of the bible doesn't seem to be included in the definition offered.

It isn't. What's your point?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Read post #11. You seem to be unaware of the topic here.





.

If what you say is true, then we have no dispute. Everything is hunky dory. You guys do what you do, and we do the same thing. So where's the argument? Seems to me that your argument is strictly a critique of how the Catholic Church has always interpreted Scripture. And, like I said of St. Jerome, you're entitled to your opinion. We are, as well, and the degree with which we agree with our Church determines how "Catholic" we are. Jerome understood this, and obeyed his Church. Martin Luther didn't, and disobeyed his Church, and broke away from it. There's the real difference. We submit to those we consider authoritative, you don't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If what you say is true, then we have no dispute. Everything is hunky dory. You guys do what you do, and we do the same thing. So where's the argument? Seems to me that your argument is strictly a critique of how the Catholic Church has always interpreted Scripture. And, like I said of St. Jerome, you're entitled to your opinion. We are, as well, and the degree with which we agree with our Church determines how "Catholic" we are. Jerome understood this, and obeyed his Church.

Martin Luther didn't, and disobeyed his Church, and broke away from it. There's the real difference. We submit to those we consider authoritative, you don't.

Seems I remember that your Pope, Benedict XVI, and some Cardinals, felt the perhaps M.L. wasn't that bad after all:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813-40/#post44360212
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

Pope Benedict will issue his findings on Luther (1483-1546) in September after discussing him at his annual seminar of 40 fellow theologians — known as the Ratzinger Schülerkreis — at Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. According to Vatican insiders the Pope will argue that Luther, who was excommunicated and condemned for heresy, was not a heretic.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the head of the pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said the move would help to promote ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. It is also designed to counteract the impact of July's papal statement describing the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as defective and “not proper Churches”.

The move to re-evaluate Luther is part of a drive to soften Pope Benedict's image as an arch conservative hardliner as he approaches the third anniversary of his election next month. This week it emerged that the Vatican is planning to erect a statue of Galileo, who also faced a heresy trial, to mark the 400th anniversary next year of his discovery of the telescope.

The Pope has also reached out to the Muslim world to mend fences after his 2006 speech at Regensburg University in which he appeared to describe Islam as inherently violent and irrational. This week Muslim scholars and Vatican officials met at the pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue in Rome to begin laying the groundwork for a meeting between the Pope and leading Muslims, also expected to be held at Castelgandolfo.

Cardinal Kasper said: “We have much to learn from Luther, beginning with the importance he attached to the word of God.” It was time for a “more positive” view of Luther, whose reforms had aroused papal ire at the time but could now be seen as having “anticipated aspects of reform which the Church has adopted over time”.

The Castelgandolfo seminar will in part focus on the question of apostolic succession, through which the apostles passed on the authority they received from Jesus to the first bishops. After the Reformation Protestants took the view that “succession” referred only to God's Word and not to church hierarchies but some German scholars have suggested Luther himself did not intend this.

Luther challenged the authority of the papacy by holding that the Bible is the sole source of religious authority and made it accessible to ordinary people by translating it into the vernacular. He became convinced that the Church had lost sight of the “central truths of Christianity”, and was appalled on a visit to Rome in 1510 by the power, wealth and corruption of the papacy.

In 1517 he protested publicly against the sale of papal indulgences for the remission of sins in his “95 Theses”, nailing a copy to the door of a Wittenberg church. Some theologians argue that Luther did not intend to confront the papacy “in a doctrinaire way” but only to raise legitimate questions - a view Pope Benedict apparently shares.

Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, who dismissed him initially as “a drunken German who will change his mind when sober”.

.

 

[abacabb3]

MoreCOffee, why are you ignoring my post?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Seems I remember that your Pope, Benedict XVI, and some Cardinals, felt the perhaps M.L. wasn't that bad after all:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813-40/#post44360212
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope




.

I didn't say he was bad, just wrong.

 

[concretecamper]

Seems I remember that your Pope, Benedict XVI, and some Cardinals, felt the perhaps M.L. wasn't that bad after all:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813-40/#post44360212
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope




.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Humility and Obedience (following the example of Christ) is what is needed.

 

[tadoflamb]

Please quote the definition. Then underline and/or embolden each of the following words in it: "private" "Judgement" "personal."

Absolutely. Do you think Rick is norming any dogmas using the practice of sola scriptura? I don't.

Your argument is with your co-sola scripturist, not me.

 

[tadoflamb]

It isn't. What's your point?

One of your fellow sola scripturists has taken the concept and run with it.

The definition offered to us in this thread limits sola scriptura to norming doctrine among us. There's nothing in there about using it to render your private judgments or to fashion a spirituality of your own making.

 

[Metal Minister]

Absolutely. Do you think Rick is norming any dogmas using the practice of sola scriptura? I don't.

Your argument is with your co-sola scripturist, not me.

You say "absolutely", yet I don't see those words having been pointed out or highlighted....

 

[Metal Minister]

One of your fellow sola scripturists has taken the concept and run with it.

The definition offered to us in this thread limits sola scriptura to norming doctrine among us. There's nothing in there about using it to render your private judgments or to fashion a spirituality of your own making.

Do we really need to continually list what Sola Scriptura is NOT? Sola Scriptura is not you and your bible under a tree. Now, provide the instances CaliforniaJosiah has asked for or stop with misrepresentations.

 

[Rick Otto]

But the official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura that has been offered us says:




Have you been using the bible to norm your doctrines? Rendering private judgement after personal reading of the bible doesn't seem to be included in the definition offered.

Assuming you do not intend to discourage reading the bible and personally seeking to understand God given words, I can only assume you mean to implicitly assert that the Holy Spirit keeps a safe distance from me in order that I may not understand them.

John Gill's explanation of that part of that verse of scripture you are using as measuring stick of my words with, might give us a clue where you are coming from:

...is of any private interpretation:
"... not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, "of one's own interpretation"; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man's own impulse", invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come; because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man's, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense the following words require."
2 Peter 1:20 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible