Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Constantine the Sinner]

No.

Then how can you say, "I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine."

?

 

[FireDragon76]

The distinction is necessary because some Protestants told me they think Jesus is a book. That's why I felt it necessary to say the bible is not the Word meaning it's not Jesus Christ.

Some Protestants do this, but not all. You will mostly find it among those who are to some degree, influenced by the fundamentalist movement. Most mainline Protestants in the Reformed or Lutheran camp would say the Bible is only the Word of God when it is used to preach Christ.

 

[samir]

The Councils did not use Holy Scriptures to establish truth claims?

They relied on Tradition alone.

 

[samir]

Then how can you say, "I do not rely on non-inspired men for doctrine."

?

Because I don't. I'm not a Catholic so I'm not following the Pope.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

They relied on Tradition alone.

What? Scripture is a description of Tradition, of course they used it to settle disputes.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Because I don't. I'm not a Catholic so I'm not following the Pope.

Then why are you dissing Protestants, since you are a Protestant Christian?

 

[buzuxi02]

I wonder then if your statement can be denied because it's not based on a mathematical equation but is philosophical in nature.

I guess it can because it already has. But 2+2 will always equal 4. On the other hand how Mary ended up in Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus is not clear cut. Why? Because the gospels draw from 2 distinct traditions that do not necessarily agree on all points.

 

[samir]

What? Scripture is a description of Tradition, of course they used it to settle disputes.

I think scripture is part of the church's tradition.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I guess it can because it already has. But 2+2 will always equal 4. On the other hand how Mary ended up in Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus is not clear cut. Why? Because the gospels draw from 2 distinct traditions.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[samir]

Then why are you dissing Protestants, since you are a Protestant Christian?

I'm not. All I'm doing is refuting bad arguments and I do not show favoritism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I think scripture is part of the church's tradition.

Holy Tradition means what Jesus taught. Scripture describes that quite a bit, even books beyond the Gospels use Christ's teachings as their source. Saying the Councils used "Tradition, not Scripture" shows a misunderstanding of these terms. It's also patently false, Scripture was very much used in Councils. Councils involved long deliberation, and people making arguments to how which theology is Apostolic. And you can imagine, Scripture was pretty useful for that.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I'm not. All I'm doing is refuting bad arguments and I do not show favoritism.

You're a Reformed Christian, yes? You deny the Eucharist is really Christ's Body and Blood, for instance?

 

[PapaZoom]

I guess it can because it already has. But 2+2 will always equal 4. On the other hand how Mary ended up in Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus is not clear cut. Why? Because the gospels draw from 2 distinct traditions that do not necessarily agree on all points.

I thought she ended up there due to the census?

 

[Albion]

A proclamation without any evidence. How Protestant.

You seem to be on a "kick" tonight of sneering at various people's comments merely because they didn't write a book instead of making a simple, although accurate, point.

Of course I could provide all the evidence you might want! But you didn't ask, did you?

If you forgot that the RCC and EO disagree on many important doctrines such that your claim to the opposite is dead wrong...we need first to correct that. Before now, I had no way of knowing if you 1) forgot the differences or if it 2) was a case of blowing smoke at us or even, 3) possibly a matter of you just not knowing enough about the two churches' doctrines to be able to recognize the error you made.

 

[buzuxi02]

I thought she ended up there due to the census?

Not according to Matthew's gospel. Also the earliest recollection of the infancy narratives given by Justin Martyr and others also offers additional details and other events in differing chronology. In other words the written word itself is based upon traditions, hence the written gospels were often refered to as the "memoirs of the apostles" in the early 2nd century.

 

[Albion]

Then why are you dissing Protestants, since you are a Protestant Christian?

,
He's not. He thinks he's an Orthodox Christian/Roman Catholic, or both, or one or the other of them, but he hasn't decided, which is why he lists his affiliation as "seeker," although he's not seeking.

 

[samir]

... even the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years...Yet many Catholics think that it was set in stone during the 300s AD and never touched or questioned until Martin Luther.



No, it is you who is engaging in fabrication if you deny what I stated, for there was no indisputable canon, and scholarly doubts and debate over books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" canon (which the tradition-based EOS slightly differ from) after the death of Luther.

I'm aware there were people who questioned the deuterocanonical books prior to Luther but I don't think the RCC ever questioned them or changed their canon. Do you agree the RCC's canon remained unchanged from the 4th century to the present?

I

As even the Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages
n the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)

In the same paragraph, it says, "Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament."

That a few people expressed some hesitation and unfavorable opinions during the 1,000 year period between Carthage and Trent does not support your claim ""the RCatholic Church considered some of the books to be questionable for over a thousand years." When the bishops at Trent voted on the RCC's 73 book canon, the vote was unanimous. Not one person objected to the deuterocanonical books being included in the canon.

As for the unanimity of your few, and non-infallible councils,

The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority. However, the Council also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html) [/FONT]

I'll have to look into it. I studied the first seven Ecumenical Councils and don't recall them ever approving any canons.

 

[samir]

Holy Tradition means what Jesus taught. Scripture describes that quite a bit, even books beyond the Gospels use Christ's teachings as their source. Saying the Councils used "Tradition, not Scripture" shows a misunderstanding of these terms. It's also patently false, Scripture was very much used in Councils. Councils involved long deliberation, and people making arguments to how which theology is Apostolic. And you can imagine, Scripture was pretty useful for that.

I never said the councils didn't use scripture because I considered scripture part of Tradition.

 

[samir]

You're a Reformed Christian, yes? You deny the Eucharist is really Christ's Body and Blood, for instance?

I'm non-denominational but after studying scripture and church history I've come to agree with many Catholic and Orthodox teachings such as Christ being present in the Eucharist.

 

[buzuxi02]

The canons of Trullo are binding in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It also shows how most Protestants don't know what the term "canonical" means in the Eastern Church. Every canon of the eastern Church makes clear that books such as Baruch are canonical (official in every list and canon except in the protestant bible) as it is read in liturgy, but in the Byzantine church Revelation is not canonical as it is not officially read in liturgy. Canons 59&60 of Laodicea, as well as the lists of Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilocius, Cyril of Jerusalem makes this all clear. In the Eastern church "canonical scripture" only refers to books incorporated into its worship it does not denote that some are semi scripture and others superscripture.