Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[VanillaSunflowers]

Another thing about cursing scripture and scripture alone is, the Gideon Bible.
I was traveling through West Virginia not long ago. I stayed at Alpine Lake Resort. Stunning! I love mountains so I never wanted to leave.
I get into my room and as I always do when I travel I opened the beside table drawer looking to see if a Gideon's Bible was there. Sure enough there was.

I pull it out to see how much wear it had. None. The spine was perfect as if it had never been opened once.

Here's a what if. Because I met someone who fit the profile.
What if a truck driver on the road for the long haul stops in a hotel or motel for that matter. They're tired of sleeping in the truck and they just want one night in a room. They feel down, depressed, life sucks, they're ready to hit that bottle of Wild Turkey they bought when they walked to the liquor store just down the road.
They open that bedside table drawer and there's Gideons.

They take it as a sign. You now have two choices. Open that Bourbon or open the Bible. Or a third choice, veg out in front of the boob-tube.
They choose the Bible. And there in that room hours later they find they believe whats written. They drop to their knees and ask Jesus to save them. They hold faith in the word. And all that it tells them about themselves and their place in God's plan and world.

They walk into the bathroom, draw a warm bath and Baptize themselves as they read John did to the son of God.
They are so emotionally invested in that Bible that they have a total life conversion in that room.

Are they saved? Does Jesus know them?
According to the council authority under discussion here, being deemed anathema by their authority meant anything or anyone that disagreed with their finding was anathema; cursed.
Imagine that! Jesus came to save the world. And a council that decrees anyone that believes faith alone saves by the Grace of God alone is to be cursed!

This is one of the best fully formed articles I've found yet that addresses the Canon's of the Council of Trent. And refutes their findings using scripture itself.

In my view, that truck driver is a child of God. And nobody will take him from the hands of Jesus Christ, as Christ did promise is so. He came to faith through scripture alone, through faith alone. Trent's people say he's cursed for that.
God delivered the message that for that he is eternally saved.

Whom do you believe? I would also council not to think to argue against those who are members of the Latin Rite church. They've been taught their very souls depend on disagreeing with anything that opposes any and all faith documents approved by the church.

The article:
Council of Trent: Canons on Justification

 

[redleghunter]

EO and Catholics agree that the Church was united for hundreds of years. It was founded by Christ.

We disagree about who left who.

From reading this thread there is no confusion from the OC side.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your problem is that you can't point to a time when the Holy Spirit reneged his promise to guide the Church. It's not there in Scripture.

Yes, the Lord has never reneged on his promise to guide His people, be it Israel or the church, but your problem is that you determine what constitutes guidance of the Spirit according to what Rome says is guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And requires assent of mind and will to the majority of her teachings that are not infallible.

Which means that no matter how much Rome is shown to be in contrast to the NT church, and no matter how greatly the leadership of the church - which laity are to follow as docile sheep - then it cannot be allowed that she is not (at least uniquely) the church which God promised to guide.

Besides the manifest absence of the distinctives of the Catholic church in the life of the NT church, and contrast to it, we have the prolonged deplorable condition of the "Spirit-led" church of Rome, which preceded the needed, if imperfect, Reformation.

Cardinal Ratzinger

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). ​

"
At no point did the Church lose the authority of the Apostles

It certainly "lost" their requirements (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) and credentials:

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

"The way it was structured in the first century, with bishops, elders, deacons, and lay-people, is the way it is now, and it has the same authority given to it by Christ in both the Apostles and the hundreds of disciples that followed them.""

But again, lacking the effectual authority/power and credentials of the Biblical apostles and their requirements, and with no perpetual infallible papacy and magisterium, or distinctive class of sacerdotal priests, or differentiation btwn bishops and elders, which referred to those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7)

 

[redleghunter]

SS doesn't weed out any traditions. You can find many doctrines taught by SS churches that are directly contradicted by other SS churches.

Why the importance to test truth claims with the Inspired written Word of God.

From the CCC:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

 

[redleghunter]

All were members of the Catholic Church.

So says you. I will agree they were members of the Body of Christ and Christian. The ekklesia, that is the 'called out ones.'

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Bible was not written as a catechism.

Which itself, with its underlaying teachings, is itself subject to conflicting interpretations. Even in the past 2 day certain RCs have excluded those whom V2 affirms as members of the body of Christ as being so. .[/QUOTE]

It is a collection of many different styles of writing - poetry, history, parables, history, letters, songs etc. - requiring different ways understanding. Literal translation is almost impossible, since Jesus taught often in figurative language and parables.

Rather, Non-literal translation of historical accounts is impossible unless you want to be consistent and reject the Resurrection. And yet for decades the notes and study helps in the officially sanctioned Catholic NAB have relegated historical accounts such as Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Balaam and the talking donkey, Jonah and the fish, Joshua's long day, etc., to being fables, and things like Joshua's conquests to being mainly folk tales, and the sermon on the Mount to not actually being where it says. Yet the NT treats them as literal historical accounts.

The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8: 30 is stumped in reading the Book of Isaiah and needed St. Phillip to help him out. These difficulties in the Bible demand an independent visible teaching authority that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Which is sanctioned under SS, but not as requiring the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). And note that Phillip was a deacon.

The visible Church is the one built by Jesus Christ on St. Peter, the rock (Matt. 16: 18-19, John 1:24). This is the Catholic Church.

Which is an interpretation contrary to how Scripture reveals it, and also fails of the "unanimous consent of the fathers."
For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.

Moreover, the visible organic churches cannot be the one true church for they inevitably are or become an admixture of wheat and tares, while the mystical body of Christ is the only one true church, since it alone only and always consists 100% of true believers.

 

[redleghunter]

Semi-pelagianism is a false premise because it pretends that the belief came AFTER Pelagius, when it was there LONG before Pelagius. It is Synergism and it's a lot older than either Calvin or Arminius's theories, which are based on the assumption that all salvation is about is forgiveness. Not relationship, not becoming sanctified. Just forgiveness.

I think you are generalizing here. I travelled quite a bit and lived in 7 different states. I've been to various Evangelical churches and not one of them claims that 'all salvation is about is forgiveness." Which I will take you mean only deliverance and redemption is preached in the Name of Jesus Christ? Perhaps we need to establish a foundation to the discussion. What is the NT Gospel message?

We do not pretend there is Communion where there is none. Doctrinal Communion must proceed the physical Eucharist. This is because when we receive Communion, we say that what is taught is in full unity with Christ and that I am in unity with what is taught here.

Thank you for your honesty in proclaiming why your church will not offer the Eucharist to Roman Rite Catholics.

 

[redleghunter]

But you're missing the primary purpose of Confession. It isn't just forgiveness from God. It is seeking counsel on dealing with the Passions against which we struggle, whether it be greed, pride, lust, gluttony, or whathaveyou.

Trying to act like it has to be legalistic is missing the point that the Sacraments are there for sanctification of soul and body, for the preparing before the door opens, so that we might not find ourselves with our wicks untrimmed and no oil in the lamp.

The OC confession is a lot different from the Roman Catholic version from conversations with OC friends. It truly sounds like a bearing of the soul and appeal for guidance and direction. I saw some clips where a confession was heard with family members present. FWIW, I think that is exactly what James was getting at. We are to share or joys and burdens with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Their prayers are a sweet aroma to our Lord as well as our own.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. The bishops at Nicea didn't get together and have a bible study and debate each others personal interpretations. They looked at what the apostles taught and sought to preserve that apostolic faith.

What did they use to do so? Yes the OT and NT writings.

 

[redleghunter]

And how did they look at what the apostles taught?

Indeed:

6. Such then, as we have above described, is the madness and daring of those men. But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say: 'Send out Your Word and Your Truth ,' and 'Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us. ' But what does that mean, if not that God has come in the Flesh? While the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh;' and in what Paul writes, 'Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession, and zealous of good works Titus 2:13-14.' How then has He given Himself, if He had not worn flesh? For flesh He offered, and gave Himself for us, in order that undergoing death in it, 'He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil Hebrews 2:14.' Hence also we always give thanks in the name of Jesus Christ, and we do not set at nought the grace which came to us through Him. For the coming of the Saviour in the flesh has been the ransom and salvation of all creation. So then, beloved and most longed-for, let what I have said put in mind those who love the Lord, while as to those who have imitated the behaviour of Judas, and deserted the Lord to join Caiaphas, let them by these things be taught better, if maybe they are willing, if maybe they are ashamed. And let them know that in worshipping the Lord in the flesh we do not worship a creature, but, as we said above, the Creator Who has put on the created body.

--To Adelphius , Bishop and Confessor: against the Arians.(Letter 60)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806060.htm

 

[redleghunter]

They looked at what the Church taught and passed down through the bishops who were the successors of the apostles.

And what were the written sources of this teaching?

 

[fhansen]

Back to definitions. Define SS since you want to anathematize it.

The concept that Scripture should be used as the sole source of revelation to serve as the rule for determining truths of the Christian faith.

 

[redleghunter]

All you've shown is that scripture contains some of the word of God that was revealed orally. The Catholic catechism contains the word of God from the prophets too. Does that mean the Catholic catechism is the word of God?

This is what your catechism says about the Sacred Scriptures:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[redleghunter]

All you've shown is that scripture contains some of the word of God that was revealed orally. The Catholic catechism contains the word of God from the prophets too. Does that mean the Catholic catechism is the word of God?

This is what your catechism says about the Sacred Scriptures:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[civilwarbuff]

I liked it even more the 2nd time.....

 

[fhansen]

This is what your catechism says about the Sacred Scriptures:

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

Here’s the fuller representation of the Catholic position vis a vis revelation, beginning with a paragraph from the same section in the catechism as that which your quotes came from, then following with earlier paragraphs from the catechism.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[redleghunter]

Baptism is the medium God has chosen to spiritually initiate people through; in the last covenant, it was circumcision. Now it's baptism. Does that mean there are no exceptions? Of course not, baptism is a tool of God, God is not a servant of baptism. God saved the Thief on the Cross without baptism, and in my Church's tradition, martyrdom also counts as baptism if you did not have one prior. God can initiate people through any medium. But he chose baptism for good reasons. If it is literally impossible for you to get baptized but you would if you could, God isn't going to say, "Tough luck, you're locked out of the Kingdom of Heaven." But if you can be baptized but don't wish to be initiated into the Kingdom that way, you're really pushing your luck.

I agree. Especially the analogy between Old covenant circumcision 'sealed' the Israelite in the covenant. Christian baptism is that visible sealing in the New covenant.

 

[redleghunter]

Here’s the fuller representation of the Catholic position vis a vis revelation, beginning with a paragraph from the same section in the catechism as that which your quotes came from, then following with earlier paragraphs from the catechism.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Indeed there are pages. I quoted the portion where the CCC states the Sacred Scriptures are the written Word of God. That was to another poster who denied the claim.

 

[redleghunter]

Is he really?

I kid you not.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201..._reformation_events_in_lund_and_malmö/1234020

Understanding Pope Francis already gives his sheep fits, this should give some hives.

 

[redleghunter]

Not at all, The Bible was writen by the Church and thus we know it is true, The Church is Inspired and vivified by the Holy Spirit and so the Bible, abd both, The Bible and the Church are inseparable elements of The Truth which is God Holy Spirit.

It only happens that I gave by settled that you knew that the Catholic Church as the True Church of Christ is to only where Pentecost happened and the only sent by Christ to PReach the Gospel.

Again your argument is "the Bible is authoritative because the Church says so; and the Church is authoritative because the Bible says so."

It's the same argument the fellas on the bicycles make about the Book of Mormon.