Sola Scriptura believers, please explain this.

[PeaceByJesus]

You said it.
In saying that you regard scripture as containing all truth needed for salvation.

Sola scriptura is refuted on basic logic.
Since nowhere does scripture say it, indeed scripture says nothing about it, (despite the weak attempts to pretend otherwise), indeed worse scripture refutes it stating the church not scripture is the pillar of truth. and so sola scriptura cannot be true without being logically self defeating.

Simple logic is all is needed.

Historically. Logically and scripturally, sola scriptura is false.
However many times you pretend otherwise.

Then perhaps you will answer the questions asked yesterday relative to this. And tell us just what does the the Greek "church living God pillar and ground the truth" mean? That Rome is uniquely the church of the living God, and the source of and perpetual essential infallible authority for determination and assurance of Truth, versus the church supporting (pillar) and being settled on the Truth of God, upon which it was built as a community of faith (which comes by hearing the word of God, which Scripture assuredly is)?

Which came first, Scripture or the church, and was the veracity of what the apostles orally preached subject to testing by Scripture, or vice versa, and could be latter written and established as conflative and complementary Scripture?

Can souls ascertain what is Scripture without the church of Rome (or EOs)? Just a few of the questions which beg to be answered.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Considering the early fathers quotes on apostolic traditions, all are derived from what was "handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

St Irenaeus opined:

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and talk, … his general mode of life and personal appearance, along with the discourses he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar interaction with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord. He would call their words to remembrance. Whatever things he had heard from them regarding the Lord … Polycarp, having heard from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, "Fragments of Irenaeus" ch. 2)
CHURCH FATHERS: Fragments (Irenaeus)​

Now we do see Irenaeus and quite a few others mention that if something is not spelled out or deduced from Scriptures that such should have the affirmation of the majority of churches or Sees. What those traditions, mostly not of apostolic origin, truly are is quite a debate between even Rome and the East.

If only the likes of Irenaeus were consistent with this profession, like as the next time they pray to created beings in Heaven.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." --John 16:12

Rev. Alex, you might have more effectively made your point if you had also quoted the next verse:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth (16:12-13)."

There is no grounds for the claim that the New Testament canon completely fulfills this expected new revelation and guidance form the Spirit. More importantly, you overlook the most relevant verse of all in the same Johannine context:

7 But very truly I tell you, it is to your advantage that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (16:7)."

Jesus actually tells us that we're better off without His physical presence! Inner guidance and revelation from" the Advocate"--the Holy Spirit--is preferable to Jesus' presence and the Spirit's work is not limited to the NT canon, which in any case, received no consensus until after 200 AD.

Too see just how incomplete our Bible is in its treatment of vital issues, just consider Didache 4:2" "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." This prohibition is found in the Two Way section of the Didache, which was composed prior to any of our NT Gospels, though the final edition of the Didache was completed around 95 AD. No such anti-abortion prohibition is explicitly found in our Bible, with the result that many Christians actually try to justify a pro-choice perspective from Scripture! This problem could have been avoided if the prohibition in Didache had been included in the biblical canon.

It is only ignorance to presume the Didache did not teach on abortion apart from the Biblical basis against it, as well as that what the Didache says is assuredly Truth apart from the Biblical basis, to which it thus owes any authority. And the Didache contains some strange teachings as well as adding to and contradicting Scripture and is not even wholly consistent with Catholicism, which rejects it as non-canonical.

 

[redleghunter]

There was a substantive period after Christ before there was a new testament

How long was this gap you claim?

when tradition, that is the faith handed down by "word of mouth and letter" was the only christianity. So the early church was not a new testament church. Which is what catholics believe!.

What were the traditions you speak of that were not inscripturated? Please list them.

We already had a discussion on what Irenaeus defined as apostolic tradition and that faith delivered to the church.

Sola Scriptura believers, please explain this.

Quoted here as well:

The early fathers had access to the written Scriptures. The one epistle we have from Polycarp is quite evident of such.

I guess the question about tradition is what were those apostolic traditions everyone seems to point to? Where's 'the list' so to speak. And what traditions are folks really discussing other than apostolic traditions? There are three I can think of:

1) The apostolic teaching or doctrine handed down from the apostles to the Church—called the apostolic tradition.
2) Ecclesiastical customs and practices.
3) A patristic consensus of the interpretation of Scripture.

#1 above is what I believe most in the ancient churches refer to when saying "Holy Tradition." I could be wrong, but if one wants the label 'ancient' we would have to look at the very early father's writings to see what they defined as the 'apostolic tradition.'

This is what Irenaeus opined on when stating receiving the faith of the Church and tradition:

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten. But the fact referred to simply implies this, that one may [more accurately than another] bring out the meaning of those things which have been spoken in parables, and accommodate them to the general scheme of the faith; and explain [with special clearness] the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets not under one form, but differently to different individuals; and show why it was that more covenants than one were given to mankind; and teach what was the special character of each of these covenants; and search out for what reason God Romans 11:32 has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and proclaim in what sense [God] says, That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:25 and in what sense He says that more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband. Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27 For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 But [the superior skill spoken of] is not found in this, that any one should, beyond the Creator and Framer [of the world], conceive of the Enthymesis of an erring Æon, their mother and his, and should thus proceed to such a pitch of blasphemy; nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said. (Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I, Chapter 10.1-3)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)​

If you look at paragraph #1 above, it should not be too difficult to determine the doctrines stated come 100% from Holy Scriptures. If you look at paragraph #2 above, Irenaeus defines paragraph #1 as the faith of the Church received and tradition. It looks like Irenaeus' definition of the tradition received from the apostles is in fact the creed or rule of faith. Which just so happens to be derived from the written Holy Scriptures.

Note: I did not add the multiple Scripture quotes in the paragraphs quoted by Irenaeus. Those are compliments of Newadvent.org.

 

[redleghunter]

It looks to me that he is repeating one of the most common misunderstandings about Sola Scriptura. We read it here all the time. That is to say that Sola Scriptura implies something about how to translate or comprehend the Bible, whereas it actually means that Scripture is the authority when it comes to doctrine.

You would think they would abandon this line of operation as it condemns how the Catholic church deems tradition. Meaning, we are told pro-abortion Catholics self-excommunicate themselves by not obeying or submitting to the CCC. That a person erroneously interpreting the CCC does not make the CCC wrong or does not change it.

Therefore, we cannot find objective truth in the CCC because there are varying opinions of what is written there.

If the shoe fits....think about it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You seem to have a gap in your history.

There was a substantive period after Christ before there was a new testament - when tradition, that is the faith handed down by "word of mouth and letter" was the only christianity. So the early church was not a new testament church. Which is what catholics believe!.

Which is simply more absurdity!

1. While Caths seems to imagine that the church was an authority into itself with no prior established substantive authoritative standard for Truth, the reality is that established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which, as said, rather than being an authority into itself, the veracity of oral preaching by apostles was subject to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)

2. The only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) is Scripture, specially Acts thru Revelation, not the words of some popes and councils, and which Catholic distinctives are not manifest.

Thus, just as the NT church would have no validity unless the Lord and His church established Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation, so we must reject Catholic distinctives which lack this.

You also dodge the question of "what is scripture" and what documents are deemed heretical.

I did not dodge it, but all others so far have dodged my questions relevant to this, which is the premise that an ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility must be essential for knowing what writings as of God, and that being the historical stewards of Scripture means Rome is that authority. Which will be dealt with next, while even is that were so, then it would still mean that both the instruments and stewards of Scripture must be subject to it.

Which is why Jesus gave authority for the church - that is the succesors of apostles to answer doctrinal questions with the power to "bind and loose" to quote scripture. Which was the authority by which the canon you now call new testament was decided in council. And many documents and canons were also rejected by authority including the first! Marcions! Without the catholic church you would not have the new testament.

Which "we gave you the Scriptures-we are the infallible authority on it" is readily manifest as spurious, since the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)

Which is what is lacking today. Catholicism presumes too much of an office, and too little of Scripture, the only substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and in which she is substantially absent and contrary to.

Meanwhile evangelicalism presumes too much of Scripture as far as practical authority is concerned, and too little of the magisterial office established thereby. Time for greater repentance.

And the thousands of PROTESTANT doctrinal disputes on which every aspect of doctrine has mutually exclusive interpretations is proof that scripture is found wanting if you regard as "formally sufficient" - the premise of sola scriptura.

No, the sufficiency of SS is not restrict to what is formally provides, or least it would have to provide for reason itself. And as just explained, the "thousands of PROTESTANT doctrinal disputes...." polemic is spurious, due to the specious nature of the comparison, while beyond a faith in Rome, Catholics are an unholy amalgamation of brethren Rome considers members yet with variant interpretations of church teachings, while in contrast those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to being the most unified in core beliefs. Why should be leave churches in which we can make distinction btwn false, liberal brethren and basically faithful, and join one which makes us brethren with Ted Kennedy types?

Take a simple aspect. Infant baptism. Scripture is not by itself clear, which proves the new testament is not, and never was intended as a complete manual. Or take priesthood.

The early church describes the role of bishops as the only ones (or their appointees) able to conduct valid eucharist. That clearly the teaching of apostle John through polycarp and ignatius. But you will struggle to find it in scripture.

Which is more absurdity! You do not define what the 1st century church believed by later uninspired words of popes and councils, and then judge Scripture by them, but you judge the uninspired words of popes and councils by wholly inspired Scripture, as noble Bereans did, and upon which the Lord substantiated His Messiahship by! (Luke 12:44)

Scripture is not sufficient alone except in the context of "material sufficiency"which is tacit admission it is not enough by itself.

Rather, it never meant formally sufficiency, for as posted and ignored,

the Westminster Confession teaches, that the whole of Scripture provides (as public revelation) the necessary content for salvation and the life of faith, but which is not restricted to what it formally provides, and understanding it includes "the due use of ordinary means," while "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." (The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)​

 

[JacksBratt]

How long was this gap you claim?

I often find that people are not aware of the uniqueness of the NT and the time frame of it's completion.

Check this out, from:Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org


The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy . . . and they are very consistent.


There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2


Author Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----

Pliny A.D. 61-113 A.D. 850 750 yrs 7 ----

Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 yrs 7 ----

Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. A.D. 1100 800 yrs 8 ----

Herodotus 480-425 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

Suetonius A.D. 75-160 A.D. 950 800 yrs 8 ----

Thucydides 460-400 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

Euripides 480-406 B.C. A.D. 1100 1300 yrs 9 ----

Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 10 ----

Caesar 100-44 B.C. A.D. 900 1000 10 ----

Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----

Tacitus circa A.D. 100 A.D. 1100 1000 yrs 20 ----

Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1400 49 ----

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. A.D. 1000 1400 yrs 193 ----

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%

New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100) 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. A.D. 130 f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You would think they would abandon this line of operation as it condemns how the Catholic church deems tradition. Meaning, we are told pro-abortion Catholics self-excommunicate themselves by not obeying or submitting to the CCC. That a person erroneously interpreting the CCC does not make the CCC wrong or does not change it.

Therefore, we cannot find objective truth in the CCC because there are varying opinions of what is written there.

If the shoe fits....think about it.

That's just too consistent with their specious reasoning. Meanwhile, RCs point us to Rome as being the supreme authority which is the solution to divisions, yet Rome is subject to variant interpretations as is Scripture, with the strongest unity as well as the most manifest divisions being among those who hold most strongly to their respective supreme authorities.

 

[redleghunter]

I often find that people are not aware of the uniqueness of the NT and the time frame of it's completion.

Check this out, from:Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org


The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy . . . and they are very consistent.


There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2


Author Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----

Pliny A.D. 61-113 A.D. 850 750 yrs 7 ----

Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 yrs 7 ----

Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. A.D. 1100 800 yrs 8 ----

Herodotus 480-425 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

Suetonius A.D. 75-160 A.D. 950 800 yrs 8 ----

Thucydides 460-400 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs 8 ----

Euripides 480-406 B.C. A.D. 1100 1300 yrs 9 ----

Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 10 ----

Caesar 100-44 B.C. A.D. 900 1000 10 ----

Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----

Tacitus circa A.D. 100 A.D. 1100 1000 yrs 20 ----

Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1400 49 ----

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. A.D. 1000 1400 yrs 193 ----

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%

New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100) 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. A.D. 130 f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Indeed. Thanks for the source so I will share too:

The New Testament Manuscript Evidence Sources | Christian Forums

 

[PeaceByJesus]

in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory..

. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart,

God Romans 11:32 has concluded every man in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all; and gratefully describe on what account the Word of God became flesh and suffered; and relate why the advent of the Son of God took place in these last times, that is, in the end, rather than in the beginning [of the world]; and unfold what is contained in the Scriptures concerning the end [itself], and things to come; and not be silent as to how it is that God has made the Gentiles, whose salvation was despaired of, fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers with the saints; and discourse how it is that this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and proclaim in what sense [God] says, That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved; Hosea 2:23; Romans 9:25 and in what sense He says that more are the children of her that was desolate, than of her who possessed a husband. Isaiah 54:1; Galatians 4:27 For in reference to these points, and others of a like nature, the apostle exclaims: Oh! The depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33... - Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus).

Well if this is the Catholic faith than evangelicals have been strong proponents and defenders of it! What? Nothing about belief in the demigoddess Mary or the gluten-god being foundational universal Truths? Today a RC can believe many errors, even that Christ was not sinless, yet as long as they exalt Mary and the Catholic Eucharist them these are likely considered Catholics, versus those Bible Christians who contend for the foundational Truths listed above since they are manifestly Scriptural. And conversely, they thus contend against those Catholic distinctives which are not.

 

[redleghunter]

Well if this is the Catholic faith than evangelicals have been strong proponents and defenders of it!

Calvin made such a point as well.

In the late 2nd century and early 3rd century AD, the rule of faith was synonymous with the faith received from the apostles and apostolic tradition. How a bishop was judged being in the faith was upholding these beliefs. According to Irenaeus and Tertullian that is.

I'll have to share some of Tertullian later by God's Grace.

 

[redleghunter]

Well if this is the Catholic faith than evangelicals have been strong proponents and defenders of it! What? Nothing about belief in the demigoddess Mary or the gluten-god being foundational universal Truths? Today a RC can believe many errors, even that Christ was not sinless, yet as long as they exalt Mary and the Catholic Eucharist them these are likely considered Catholics, versus those Bible Christians who contend for the foundational Truths listed above since they are manifestly Scriptural. And conversely, they thus contend against those Catholic distinctives which are not.

There's more. In debating the Gnostics, Irenaeus found they relied heavily on what they (the heretics) deemed their apostolic traditions. It's quite interesting how he responded to their claims:

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:​

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2.1) CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.2 (St. Irenaeus)

 

[Athanasius377]

It looks to me that he is repeating one of the most common misunderstandings about Sola Scriptura. We read it here all the time. That is to say that Sola Scriptura implies something about how to translate or comprehend the Bible, whereas it actually means that Scripture is the authority when it comes to doctrine.

And add to it the false notion that said authority created 33,000 protestant denominations. Here's a good RC article refuting that nonsense and describes where it came from.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There's more. In debating the Gnostics, Irenaeus found they relied heavily on what they (the heretics) deemed their apostolic traditions. It's quite interesting how he responded to their claims:

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:​

Irenaeus: Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2.1) CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.2 (St. Irenaeus)

However, they themselves were not consistent with only teaching what Scripture evidences the NT church believed, and eventually found it easier to appeal to tradition that developed rather than Scripture as supreme, which eventually would culminate in the Assumption being made binding belief, despite the lack of evidence of it among ECFs, as well as any manifest expectation in Scripture, with the veracity of which resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And add to it the false notion that said authority created 33,000 protestant denominations. Here's a good RC article refuting that nonsense and describes where it came from.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Thanks. But it seems most RCs who cite this come from some place like Catholic Answers, where RC propaganda is common and most everyone who refutes such has been banned, or will be.

I saw the 33,000+ assertion and have linked to refutation before, but let is go this time, while pointing out that,

comparing an amalgamation of churches called "Protestant" which can inmclude everything from to Scientology to Swedenborgism to so-called "Jehovah's Witnesses" to so-called "Christian Science" Mormonism to Unitarianism to other liberal churches, based on not being Catholic, is specious, and to thus to prove your point, then you would have to show that holding to SS can never produce unity equal or superior to that of Catholicism.​

And pointed out that

we have various types of Catholics (besides the substantial irreconcilable differences btwn RCs and EOs), from brands of Traditionalists who dissent in part from (theology by warring committees) Vatican 2, and the non-infallible CCC, to varying degrees of liberal Catholics, both of which are represented here, and virtually all of which are counted and treated as members in life and in death by Rome..​

While rather than resulting in unity,

As one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, Against The Grain
​

And since your source, The National Catholic Register, is considered liberal by Traditionalists, who are the most likely to cite the 33k stat, they are more likely to dismiss it. But the author has done his homework, though he never mentions the divisive condition of his own church.

Excerpts:

The source is the two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press). Take note of the passage where the 33,000 figure comes up..

The WCE then goes on to break down “world Christianity” into the following broad categories:

Independents: 22,000 denominations
Protestants: 9000 denominations
Marginals: 1600 denominations
Orthodox: 781 denominations
Catholics: 242 denominations
Anglicans: 168 denominations

Thus the immediate problem is that the WCE only classifies 9000 denominations (27% of the whole) as Protestant. To get to 33,000, one must add in the Independents, Marginals, Anglicans, and 232 of the Orthodox...

did you notice that the definition limits a denomination’s reach to “within a specific country”? In other words, you cannot have a single denomination existing in the United States and England at the same time. They may both be Presbyterian, but they are two different denominations, even if nothing else divides them. So the WCE comes up with 438 Presbyterian denominations and 647 Methodist and 1017 Baptist....

Moreover, Independent Baptist congregations, who have a high doctrine of the local church and govern themselves, are each counted as separate denominations, even though they may all believe the same doctrine...

However strong the temptation some may have to characterize anything not Catholic or Orthodox as “Protestant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protestant apologists is that you don’t know what Protestantism is, or what its distinctives are—and they would be right. And why would they take anything you say seriously after that?

 

[redleghunter]

However, they themselves were not consistent with only teaching what Scripture evidences the NT church believed, and eventually found it easier to appeal to tradition that developed rather than Scripture as supreme, which eventually would culminate in the Assumption being made binding belief, despite the lack of evidence of it among ECFs, as well as any manifest expectation in Scripture, with the veracity of which resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Right and if we take Tertullian's quote on what the Gnostics were doing by appealing to a masked and ambiguous "tradition" was required to understand the Scriptures, we see the later doctrinal development of the Catholic church embrace a similar model.

 

[r4.h]

Well if there other written instructions out there that are for us, then Revelation 22:19 (which God foreknew would be the closing book to the 66 books inspired books) is nonsense and God is misleading us.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well if there other written instructions out there that are for us, then Revelation 22:19 (which God foreknew would be the closing book to the 66 books inspired books) is nonsense and God is misleading us.

Well, the problem with making that refer to the canon is that we cannot prove it refers to it, yet it does forbid adding to "this book" at hand, which was the last book penned, and besides that it is similar statement to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy12:32 and Proverbs 30:6 which warns against adding to God's word in general.

The Catholic premise is that she is not adding to the word of God, but simply providing them, seeing as it first was given orally, with some of this later been penned, though that it only partially true, since much of the Bible was written directly as the word of God, and even the record of the words of Christ are not necessarily verbatim what He said, as duplicate accounts evidence. And need not be, since it is the same Spirit of God by Whom Christ spoke that inspired the writers to write what Christ gave to the Holy Spirit to say.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:13-14)

Who can provide a fuller complementary revelation (sometimes recasting or expanding) as well as one tailored to the type of audience (24 chapters in Mark, likely written more for slaves who have not the time as scholars, unlike Matthew). Thus the written word is superior on that account.

In addition, the assurance we have that something true that was orally passed down (such as 2 Timothy 3:8) is Truth and the word of God is by its inclusion in wholly inspired Scripture, whereas for Catholics assurance rests upon Rome, the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, though popes and councils are not speaking as wholly inspired of God in declaring something is the word of God.

But under her unholy presumption of ensured infallibility, when faced with lack of not only the necessary testimony from Scripture but from early history where it should be found, the Catholic is told, "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." - Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275)

Under this premise, then Catholicism presumes the credentials basically decree all sorts of things to be the word of God, and if not for those pesky "chapter and verse" Prots, she most likely would have added more by now.

Of course, Catholicism even teaches that we cannot ascertain what is Scripture apart from her, and implicit faith in her, with her magisterial infallibility being essential for that, which is absurd, since a canon of Scripture has manifestly been established by the time of Christ, which was never made a point of contention by those who sat in the seat of Moses (who are thought to have subscribed to the smaller tripartite canon (cf. Lk. 24:44), which the Catholic Encyclopedia affirms is that of the Protestants).

And thus Scripture materially provides for the recognition of a canon, while the sufficiency of Scripture is not restricted to what it formally provides, such as the message of salvation in Acts 10:34-43, but it includes materially providing for reason, writings, the private guidance of the Spirit, etc. preaching the Scriptural word (Acts 8:4), which, as with the preaching of the apostles of the very word of God, is subject to testing by Scripture as supreme by honest seekers/lovers of Truth. (Acts 17:11)

Furthermore, consistent with the command of Christ to John to "write" and reference to "this book," wholly inspired Scripture is God's means of long term reliable authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; Exodus 34:27; Deuteronomy 10:4; Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 27:3; Deuteronomy 31:24; 2 Kings 22:10-13; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23; John 20:31; Revelation 20:12, etc.)

• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
• And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
• And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
• And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24)
• Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
• But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
• And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12)
• And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)

And thus it was not because of faithful oral transmission being and effectually preserving the word among people, but it was in the absence of this that the king of Israel ripped his clothes in repentance over upon the hearing of the written word, this being the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, upon which the NT church established its claims.

• And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)
• Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:13)

For as is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

 

[r4.h]

We are not required to have absolute proof of most things, only proof beyond reasonable doubt. God often does not give us absolute proof, yet expects certain action to follow enough proof.

Im not actually sure what your arguing for or against, you certainly havnt said anything concrete to my mind as your opening sentence is based on false premise.

To be clear my position is firm, the God who saved me does not play with words.

 

[ZourAourbaby]

.
The root of the problem that Roman Catholics have with the Bible - is not really based in the discussion, decision or in the idea of “SOLA SCRIPTURA.

This is only a surface and distraction to disguise the true root of the facts.. But rather the ROOT of the problem is that their translations are filled with inaccuracy, error and changes.

This is eXactly why - The Roman Catholics waited for nearly 500 years to produce their own Roman Catholic Produced Bible into their own personal Latin / Italian Language ____ And also Roman Catholics waited for nearly 2000 years to produce a bible into any another language on earth - other than their own personal cultural races Italian - Latin language. { that was the Douay Rheims { English} translation. nearly 2000 years after Yahoshua. what a shame.

A prime eXample eXists - Demonstrating in the fact that the Catholics and Protestants both DISAGREE about the translation of Gen 3:14 -15

Here The LORD God said unto the serpent............. and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. -

Gen 3:15 Making enmity between the woman, between the seed. - The seed that bruises the head, You bruise the heel.

That’s it ! - Plain and simple from the original teXts. The translators adding - Her heel and - His seed - is all made up by Catholic and Protestants who go through the entire Bible doing this very type of adding rearrangement on the original message.. to fit and mold and model the doctrines into their image. Catholics make most of their THEOLOGY up. Adding things to so much of the Bible.

In Gen 3:14 -15 - The seX of the seed of Eve did not even eXist yet. There was not a special assignment mentioned of a prophecy foretelling the seX of the seed and here. Yet we see the Protestants are satisfied with their translators placing/assigning / the male seX of an unborn / unconceived child onto the verse - and the Catholics are just as fine - with their translators totally changing the DIRECT subject of The SEED to direct it spiritually back to a previous subject or future events “ An out of conteXt Future prophecy of Mother Mary “ or even possibly Eve or both. .

In Gen 3:14 – 15 God is Speaking directly to the serpent - Concerning the Seed Of The Woman - Gen 3:15 Putting enmity between the woman, between the seed. The seed, that bruises thy head, thou shalt bruise the heel.

The original authors literally place the word seed twice together saying between the seed. The seed, that bruises { the seed זֶרַע - The seed זֶרַע } - in the in the original manuscripts. Again - 15 Putting enmity between the woman, between the seed. The seed; that bruises thy head, You shalt bruise the heel. We know that Roman Catholics will never take the time to take God at His word - because they have no scriptures for their faith - They only rely on the word of Canaanite, Persian, Arabian European men who call themselves various forms of Italians in Italy, to tell them what the Manuscripts are saying.

There is no prophecy and foretelling of the seX of Eve’s seed mentioned, the Child had not even been conceived yet the Seed. The Seed that bruises the head. - - __________ ------ It is not a Him or Eve.
Roman Catholics are in fact themselves - SOLA QURAN.
The Catholics Holds Up Mohammud as A Spiritual Father of their acclaimed Faith - Spewing and Dumping out His Prophetic Revelations and Prophecies and messages as a Fact. While the Bible declares that they are lying.

Roman Catholics are SOLA Quran - Regarding The Prophetic Lies Of Their Father Mohammud.

The Prophetic Lie that Muslims are Following Abraham is a Catholic Teaching and DEMAND - that was REVEALED and PROPHECIED by their Father Mohammad. And Goes against the BIBLE. In every single way.

The Pope and Roman Catholics are Pushing the REVELATIONS and PROPHECIES of their Father Mohammad and it is Causing people to be deceived and the bible has already Cleared all of this up.

Mohammud Introduced the NEW SOLA QURANIC Prophecy, *( REVELATION ) that Allah was the God of Abraham and of the Bible. Before Mohammud eXisted - This Quranic Catholic Tradition did not eXist.
Mohammud Introduced the NEW Prophecy, *( Quranic REVELATION ) That Mother Mary of Islam is the Same Mother Mary of the Scriptures. Before Mohammud eXisted - This Catholic Tradition did not eXist.
Mohammud is The Quranic Catholic Father - of this Traditional Faith. / Revelation / or Prophecy.

The Vatican Today - follows the Prophecy, Revelations and the TRADITION of Mohammud. The Catholic Church Confirms Mohammud's Revelation, That Mother Mary has an Important and Holy, Devine Role in Islam. In the Quran and also in records of Visions, Prophecy, and Revelations of Mother Mary - to Muslims today.

Mary of Islam in The Quran - is Confirming the Message of Islam. Yet the Pope still Kisses his Quran and Prays with Muslims. They believe in and worship The SAME eXact God. - AND This is what the Quranic Catholic Church Teaches.... SOLA QURAN.

Mohammud Also Introduced the NEW SOLA QURANIC Prophecy, *( REVELATION ) That He and His Followers were Descendants of Ishmael.

Today - Roman Catholics follow these SOLA QURANIC REVELATIONS and Prophecies of Mohammad. The Prophecies and Revelations He received - That He was a Descendant of Ishmael, AND That Ishmaelites were a still a LIVING group of people alive at the time of Mohammud. The Prophecies and Quranic Revelations that The Ishmaelites were Given an Abrahamic Covenant by God. The SOLA QURANIC Prophecies and Revelations that Allah was the God of Abraham. All of these Catholic Teachings are proven wrong by the Bible and Also by basic World History. FACTS. Mohammad is A Spiritual Father of - This Roman Catholic Faith.

Before Mohammud eXisted - This Catholic Tradition did not eXist. There were no Catholic or World Historical Accounts that give any claim to the Idea that There were a KNOWN people alive anywhere on Earth, at Mohammed's time - who were Proven or known to be descended from Ishmael.

Mohammud is the Father of this Traditional Faith. / His Revelation / His Prophecy was not based on Evidence or Facts but upon a spiritual Revelation. - yet Catholics everywhere are compelled to place their FAITH on Mohamud's Prophecy and Revelations. Given by the Revelation of a Spirit. Mohammud Introduced the NEW Prophecy, *( REVELATION ) That People can find a Salvation PLAN - in Following Islam . By following a Plan that Declares that the God of the Bible is a Lie and His People are Evil and that The Anointed and His Bride are damned unless they Reject Yahoshua The Anointed. Remember that - Before Mohammud and His Quran eXisted - This Catholic Tradition did not eXist. Mohammud Alone - is the Catholic Father of this Traditional Faith. /

Roman Catholics are SOLA QURAN.
It took the Catholic Church nearly 500 years after Yahoshua Just to produce a single Latin Bible. They never produced any Bible. Because There was simply already a Latin Bible Produced by The Anointed Christians in Northern Africa nearly 300 years before that the Catholic Church Decided to even finish its Vulgate. The Roman Catholic Church only produces SECOND, SECOND-Hand translations of all its translations. Then The Catholic again Produced a second, second-Hand Translation nearly 2000 YEARS Later -

There are no Catholics in the Bible. No Catholic Saints, No Catholic Leaders and there is No Catholic God in the Bible The bible alone mentions a LIVE, RECORDED, REAL TIME EVENT for a living presence of a people called Ishmaelites. Roman Catholics imaginative hearts are raptured and happier trusting in the REVELATIONS and PROPHECIES of Mohammad and prefer to see the Bible as they firstly gaze and look through Mohammad’s Prophetic and Revealing lens firstly. Because many eXperts and many people do hate and disdain The Bible but love to look at The Bible through special lenses and pre - arranged contacts firstly. Islam and Mohammad is the warped lens that makes them feel better as they look upon the scriptures.

I believe that many accept Mohammad as their spiritual father and a revelator of their faith even though they are not Muslims. outside of Mohammad’s Revelations and Prophecy - these claims never eXisted.

In this regard All Catholics and – many today { even non-Muslims} are SOLA Quran and Mohammad is a Spiritual Father and a Revelator Of their Faith.
.