Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[redleghunter]

I rely on the church because Jesus promised the gates of hell won't prevail against it. I recognize false doctrine by comparing it to the ancient Christian faith. If it's an innovation that conflicts with what Christians have always believed because the church taught it from the beginning then I know it is false.

IMHO I believe you are trying hard to downplay the important teachings of your church on Sacred Scriptures.

From your 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 2,8L 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9L 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).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "


Third time I posted this to a Catholic member on this thread. I gather no responses given the above is very close to what every non Catholic is arguing on this thread.

 

[FireDragon76]

The RCC still doesn't commemorate the Dormition, just the Assumption. Although that might also be because the Dormition would conflict with their harmartology and their doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

It depends... the death of Mary is a widespread theological opinion, but the dogma leaves a great deal open to interpretation. I don't think most modern Catholic theologians see a conflict between the Immaculate Conception and her death, anymore that Christ's death conflicts with his sinlessness.

I've done research on the topic and the Immaculate Conception in Roman Catholicism actually owes its origins to eastern Mariology. Even at the time of Bernard of Clairvaux it was quite controversial with the Romans, Bernard opposed the feast day as a novel tradition.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It depends... the death of Mary is a widespread theological opinion, but the dogma leaves a great deal open to interpretation. I don't think most modern Catholic theologians see a conflict between the Immaculate Conception and her death, anymore that Christ's death conflicts with his sinlessness.

Don't Catholics see Original Sin as the source of natural death?

 

[redleghunter]

Here is a long answer to 436 comments at this point, some short, some long, some wearisome:

http://www.cwrc-rz.org/whybiblealone.html

I propose all commenters meet for a picnic in an agreed-upon location. Oops.....that would require 436 more comments..........

Such a picnic would resemble some family reunions I attended.

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't Catholics see Original Sin as the source of natural death?

Traditionally, death is the penalty for Adam's disobedience, but the inclination to sin is also seen as "Original sin", a deprivation of grace owing to Adam's disobedience and expulsion from Eden. This is what they believe was overcome by grace in Mary owing to the merits of Christ, so that she did not experience the lust for sin, just as Christ did not.

 

[redleghunter]

I read the canon of those church councils and their 73 book canon was exactly the same as the canon the Catholic Church uses today which means the Catholic canon has remained unchanged and unaltered since the 4th century.

The Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox don't agree just by looking at their canon.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Traditionally, death is the penalty for Adam's disobedience, but the inclination to sin is also seen as "Original sin", a deprivation of grace owing to Adam's disobedience and expulsion from Eden. This is what they believe was overcome by grace in Mary owing to the merits of Christ, so that she did not experience the lust for sin, just as Christ did not.

So they see Mary's death as punishment for Adam's disobedience?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox don't agree just by looking at their canon.

Er, we're a bit of a different case from Catholics and Protestants. For us, dogma is and only is what Christ personally taught. Since Christ didn't prescribe a particular canon, we don't believe there is a dogmatic canon.

 

[redleghunter]

Who can really say the salvation of another Christian, especially one from a completely different tradition with different beliefs and practices?

Not everyone that says "Lord, Lord", shall be saved, after all.

BTW, that's the great thing about the intercession of saints, you have some potential proof that some Christian at least is in the "good place". I've always been curious about Luther, wheather he is in hell, heaven, or purgatory (most likely). So if he gets sprung out to heaven, then maybe I could pray to Dr. Luther and ask him to perform me a miracle, maybe pray a Novena to him, and wait and see what happens.

Maybe you can ask Pope Francis next year when he celebrates Reformation day in Sweden.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Maybe you can ask Pope Francis next year when he celebrates Reformation day in Sweden.

Is he really?

 

[FireDragon76]

So they see Mary's death as punishment for Adam's disobedience?

Yes and no? The penalty of original sin is not personal in that way, at least I don't believe most Catholic theologians would say so. Still, I think they would say Mary, just like Enoch or Elijah, had not merited death, but God chose to let her die. I think mostly because it fits with their idea that Mary participated in the life of her Son intimately, her assumption is a kind of type of the resurrection and future glorification of all the faithful.

Is he really?

Yes, though "celebrate" is probably too strong a word. I don't even think the local Lutheran church will be celebrating it so much as just reflecting on it. Probably because the local church has so much contacts with Roman Catholicism.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If the church of Satan wrote a book that says "Jesus wept." that sentence would still be the word of God but it wouldn't mean the Satanic book is the word of God.

You just professed that coping God's word gives no indication of authority or truth to the one copying it. Anyone can do it. This is the reason why it is excusable for language experts that are not necessarily Christian or Christian doctrine experts to translate scripture. The truth of scripture comes from the original source. So much for the RCC writing the Bible.

And, to take your example to the extreme:
If the church of Satan wrote a book that contained all God's words, would it still be a Satanic book?

If the RCC compiled a book that contained all God's words, would it be an RCC book?

Now if the church of Satan wrote a book that was exactly the same as the Bible, except they changed one verse. Matthew 4:10 to "Jesus said to Satan, 'Sure lets work together for two are mightier than one.'"

Could we still use that book as scripture? There is a reason for the duplication of major concepts in scripture. There is a reason for 3 synoptic gospels saying the same thing but a little bit differently. Don't you think that one familiar with the whole Bible would have no difficulty in identifying the error of this one verse and disregarding it?

Now this example was an extreme one, but it serves my point that the Bible still contains God's word and is still true despite any slight "errors" injected from copying, translations and such.

 

[FireDragon76]

Er, we're a bit of a different case from Catholics and Protestants. For us, dogma is and only is what Christ personally taught. Since Christ didn't prescribe a particular canon, we don't believe there is a dogmatic canon.

Lutherans and many Reformed churches actually don't have a fixed canon either, BTW. Luther had a lot of skepticism of course about books actually being apostolic, but he actually didn't exclude books from the Bible: evangelical Bible societies actually did that- most of them from Free Church traditions influenced by radical Protestantism. For several centuries it was actually illegal to print Bibles without the so-called Apocrypha in many Protestant countries (another thing that was illegal- holding a group Bible study without an ordained minister present). Early magisterial Protestants focused on devotional reading of the Bible.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Lutherans and many Reformed churches actually don't have a fixed canon either, BTW.

While Luther hated several books from the New Testament and thought they should be excluded, I'm pretty sure Lutherans and Calvinists today would see having an NT canon short of theirs to be a serious issue (since canon is the entirety and only source of Protestant doctrine, I imagine it would be a very serious issue; without Holy Tradition, cutting Scripture is identical to cutting dogma). Also the apocryphal books to the Protestants were always just that: apocryphal, which means not canon. They were bound with the canon books, but declared not canon, just accessory material. The Protestant OT canon is dogmatically conformed to the Pharisaic canon.

 

[Catherineanne]

That was my point to begin with, the men in church government never were infallible, they are like anyone else. The Hebrew priest who redacted the OT books that were authored by still other imperfect men, were not infallible.

Is it state the blinking obvious day already? That came round very quickly!

Today is Friday and the Pope is a Catholic.

 

[Catherineanne]

In my theology Jesus isn't the second person of Triune deity, he is a creation of the Trinity.

Heresy is a term invented by the "brown shirts" of church government to maintain control of the people and the churches message.......for everyone's own good of coarse.

Yeah, you don't get to recreate Christianity in your own image, nor do you get to redefine what 'heresy' means.

 

[Catherineanne]

If you don't treat scripture with the same truth and authority that Jesus did, then my comment stands.

I do.

Jesus did not worship Scripture; he worshipped the Father. He made it very clear that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath, for example. In other words, what matters is our relationship with God, not just following rules for the sake of it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I would have quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 first. Unlike the other two verses you quoted, it actually says scripture is God breathed which is equivalent to saying it is the word of God.

Obviously my argument presumed you knew what Scripture was, and thus if the Lord referred to it as the word of God, then it was, not as simply containing the word of God as you tried to reduce it to. And by your own admission here your bold denial is reduced to what you think capitalization teaches.

I believe, as all catholics and Christians do, that the bible is the word of God. I just don't think it's the Word of God (since the Word is Jesus) or that scripture alone is God's word since the word of God can be found outside of scripture.

Which is a distinction without a difference except in form. A word is an expression, and both Christ as the express visible expression of the invisible God, as well as His own words are both the Word of God.

To see Christ is to see the Father, and to hear His wholly inspired word is to hear God. But Christ is more than just "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power," (Hebrews 1:3) but is God by nature, possessing attributes, glory and titles which are only ascribed to God.

The OT says to live by every word of God. All Jesus did was say the OT said that. Not even close to saying scripture is the word of God. I do believe 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that but not Matthew 4:4.

Which is just as absurd as before. Again, the Lord quotes Scripture as authorative that one is to live by every word of God to contrast to obeying the counsel of the devil, yet you have Him teaching that the very command to live by every word of God is not the word of God!

You didn't quote that verse earlier. You quoted 2 verses that didn't teach what you claimed. I won't dispute 2 Timothy.

You mean i wrongly presumed that you believed that Scripture was wholly inspired of God, and thus quoting it as the word of God was not simply referring to it containing the word of God, but as being the word of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

While Luther hated several books from the New Testament and thought they should be excluded,

See here.

"I'm pretty sure Lutherans and Calvinists today would see having an NT canon short of theirs to be a serious issue (since canon is the entirety and only source of Protestant doctrine, I imagine it would be a very serious issue; without Holy Tradition, cutting Scripture is identical to cutting dogma).

Dr. Luther by no means was acting as a pope and issuing a binding canon, but was doing much the same as other Catholic scholars had done down thru the centuries and right into Trent, but expressed that others could come to their own conclusion.

As for the canon being a product of Tradition, Scripture supports souls discerning both men and writing as being of God, essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation, and conflation with what had already been established as being of God. And thus the establishment of the Prot canon is Scriptural in principal, and is not due to presumed infallible conciliar decree.

Though you are not an RC, there is a critical different btwn that and a pope declaring belief in a extraScriptural events over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred, which was so lacking in warrant from early tradition that his own scholars opposed it as belonging to apostolic tradition.

Also the apocryphal books to the Protestants were always just that: apocryphal, which means not canon. They were bound with the canon books, but declared not canon, just accessory material. "

Contrary to typical contentions of RCs, which i understand you are not.

"The Protestant OT canon is dogmatically conformed to the Pharisaic canon."

Which was never a source of contention, with the Lord quoting texts from among this canon, and this tripartite canon is seen by many as inferred in Christ establishing His mission to His disciples. (Lk. 24:44)

 

[Rick Otto]

You are blatantly distorting scripture in both cases. Does it bother you that what you believe is so different than what the bible says?

LOL.
I love your sense of humor.