Sola Scriptura?

Paul S · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
So yes, The Church needs the Bible. Without it... I think we know what would happen.

√Groovy

What would happen?

Highway of Life · Nov 16, 2004

Paul S said:
What would happen?

IT Would happen!

HoL

Paul S · Nov 16, 2004

Highway of Life said:
IT Would happen!

HoL

Really scary clowns would happen? (Actually, "really scary" and "clowns" is redundant.)

Highway of Life · Nov 16, 2004

clskinner said:
Early Christians only had Christ's teachings through Tradition.

Did they forget to bring their Bibles?

What do you mean by Tradition? The Apostles heard Jesus first hand, then they wrote about him. They had the Torah, which is the Law. They had the books of the Prophets, the only thing they did not have, as Groovy said, was the NT.

HoLe In OnE

St. Amadeus II · Nov 16, 2004

Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."

How did the early christians make do without a Bible? It's called the Old Testament. Even the words of the Apostles had to be examined.

Carrye · Nov 16, 2004

Highway of Life said:
What do you mean by Tradition? The Apostles heard Jesus first hand, then they wrote about him. They had the Torah, which is the Law. They had the books of the Prophets, the only thing they did not have, as Groovy said, was the NT.

Tradition as the oral handing down of events, traditions, etc. The Apostles did hear Jesus first hand, but they didn't run home and write it down. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written what, some 30-odd years after the death of Christ. And even then it wasn't widespread among the people.

Yes, the Jews had Torah, but not all early Christians were Jews. What did they do?

Highway of Life · Nov 16, 2004

clskinner said:
[/color]

Tradition as the oral handing down of events, traditions, etc. The Apostles did hear Jesus first hand, but they didn't run home and write it down. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written what, some 30-odd years after the death of Christ. And even then it wasn't widespread among the people.

Yes, the Jews had Torah, but not all early Christians were Jews. What did they do?

They got the Scriptures same way the Jews did: Written Tradition.

Those Apostles had good memories.

Can't you remember 30 years ago clskinner?

HoLe In OnE

Paul S · Nov 16, 2004

Highway of Life said:
Did they forget to bring their Bibles?

What do you mean by Tradition? The Apostles heard Jesus first hand, then they wrote about him. They had the Torah, which is the Law. They had the books of the Prophets, the only thing they did not have, as Groovy said, was the NT.

HoLe In OnE

Most of them, like most people throughout history, couldn't read. Even if they could, the books of the Bible hadn't been written yet or weren't widespread. Some communities might only have one or two gospels and a few epistles. Even if they had all the books, they wouldn't know which ones were inspired and which weren't until 393, when the Church defined this.

For Christians, the New Testament is the most important part of the Bible. For at least 400 years, from 1570 to 1970, the Old Testament was very rarely read at Mass. Even among Protestants, when various groups hand out Bibles, they usually give the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs. While the Old Testament is useful, missing the New Testament, without Tradition, is missing Christianity altogether.

ps139 · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
Do you remember how many times Jesus quoted passages from Scripture? Do you remember how many times the Jews of the time quoted passages from Scripture? They had the Prophets and the Laws. (Torah)... They had Scripture, and the early church had Scripture.

√Groovy

I think she is referring to the NT. Also remember that all the prophets were hated in their own times. The Early Church had a lot of 'scriptures' floating around, some were legitimate (the ones now in the Bible) and a lot were false and with error. If it were not for the Church, and the Oral Tradition handed down from the apostles, how would we know which of those early epistles and gospels were true or false? We wouldn't.. you'd probably see people running around quoting from the "Gospel of Thomas" or the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene," which in truth are forgeries, and thanks to the Church we know that.

Groovy · Nov 16, 2004

ps139 said:
I think she is referring to the NT. Also remember that all the prophets were hated in their own times. The Early Church had a lot of 'scriptures' floating around, some were legitimate (the ones now in the Bible) and a lot were false and with error. If it were not for the Church, and the Oral Tradition handed down from the apostles, how would we know which of those early epistles and gospels were true or false? We wouldn't.. you'd probably see people running around quoting from the "Gospel of Thomas" or the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene," which in truth are forgeries, and thanks to the Church we know that.

Right, I knew what she was saying, but the Early Christians where just getting the NT at that time, it was not even complete yet, all they had was the Law, and the Prophets before them. But What I am saying is that Jesus and the Apostles mentioned Scripture several times. Showing that they did indeed have some form of Scripture before the third century.

√Groovy

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
First I would like to say, this is an excellent point. Great post TLF!

Now before I go on, please understand I am not downplaying the authority of the Church.

Who are some?

Hi Groovy

Thank you for approaching this with us in a charitable manner.

What I was referring there was to the writers of the scriptures . . for there had to be infallibility in the writing of the scriptures . .

That was leading up to the idea that yes, there is such a thing as infallibility in the Church . .

Only the Popes? or the Bishops AND the Popes?

OK . .let's look at this a little closer . .

The scriptures were canonized in the late 4th and early 5th centuries by groups of Bishops along with Popes . .

Now . . if they were not acting infallibly, the Pope individually, and the Bishop's collectively, how can we at all trust that we have the correct books in the bible?

Unless it is recognized that they acted infallibly, and let's look at just the New Testament for brevity, then there is absolutely no certaintiy that we can have that another book should have been included, and something that was included shouldn't have been . .

Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them, together, into all truth . .

Not part truth, with part error remaining . . but ALL truth . .

The apostles passed on their authority to those they ordained . . . the Bishops, together, act infallibly when the need arises . . individually, they are not infallible.

As you discovered, the Pope acts infallibly only in a very limited and narrow sense, and rarely . . and when it is done, it is in a negative way . . protecting, not promulgating . .

So in answer to your question, as I understand it, the answer is yes . . only the Pope and biships, and only in certain circumstances.

However, not every Pope has been canonized. Infact there are a lot that have not been, especially after the fifth century.

This is a very common misconception and misunderstanding . .

It mixes two independent concepts up, as though they were equal . .

What you are speaking of now goes towards impeccablility . . sinlessness . . that one has to be holy in order for this protective gift to operate.

If you will look at this with me a little closer, maybe I can help.

If we go back to Jesus' teaching regarding the Seat of Moses, there is something there that addresses what you are talking about . . He tells the people to OBEY the scribes and phraises, BECAUSE they sit in ithe seat of Moses . . buyt they are hypocrites .. so they are to do as they say, but not imitate what they do.

The authority they exrecised did not depend at all on their holiness or sinlessness . . The authority accompainied the OFFICE they occupied.

The same is true with our Popes . . . . one does not have to be a saint to be a Pope . . one has to be validly elected. The authority this position conferrs, the authority this OFFICE confers is not dependent on the person's sinlessness . .

The Holy Spirit is not dependent on the sinlessness of the person occupying this office either . . We see the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament coming upon Saul who was after David to kill him . . the Holy Spirit came upon Saul and he began to prophesy . . .

God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and made it speak to him . .

The Office of the papacy was instituted by Christ . .this office was first occupied by Peter . . to him was given the authority of the Keys of the Kingdom. . . .

This is an Office and its validity is not dependent on the person occupying it.

The teaching of the Church is that the Holy Spirit protects the Church, and so will not allow a Pope to "infallibly" proclaim a false teaching as true to be believed by all the faithful. We have seen this actually play out in the history of the Church.

Look at the popes who all would agree were sinners . . what formal teaching every came out of their papacies that they proclaimed? None . .

When one pope did try to make a formal infalliblie proclamation that was full of error, the Holy Spirit apparently stepped in at the last moment, and the pope, who had been full of life and vigor, strong and hardy, suddenly took seriously ill the night before his proclamation . . he died shortly afterwards, never making a declaration that would have been false . . (it had to do with a bible that was full of errors that he translated himslef . .that he was about to declare infallibly error free).

Whether or not a pope is ever canonized, that is not a citeria for exercising the power and authority of the office one occupies. . .

Infallibility and impeccability are not the same and one is not required for the other . .. the Infalliblity of the pope rests with the OFFICE . . not the person . .

Does this make sense?

Second: God knew that the Scriptures where going to be used for Thousands of years, don't you think he would have made sure the Scriptures where infallible?

√Groovy

Yes, of course! But He used men to write them down, didn't He? He used men to canonize what was scripture and separate this out from all the other writings that many claimed to be scripture . .

This power and authority of infalliblity He has chosen to opperate through men . . .

But He has never promised you and I individually will ever be infallibly this side of heaven . . .

So . . it comes back to interpreting the scriptures . . .

Shall we rest on our own fallible understanding and hope we get it right?

Or shall we rest on the Church Jesus gave us, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, which Jesus promised the gates of hell would never prevail against, who is led into ALL Truth through the teaching of the apostles and those who followed them??

God has chosen men to act infallibly to protect the Church from error . . .

Shall I only rely on my own fallible understanding and disregard what God has given me in and through the Church? An infallible interpreter of God's word?

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
I believe Michelina addressed this, you can NOT have one without the other.

The Church needs the Bible, it is the Sacred Written Tradition.

Why? The bible came out of our Sacred Tradition . . but Sacred Tradition would still contain the teachngs of the Church in their fulness if we didn't have the bible . . .

The Bible needs the Church, it is the interpreter of the Bible.

Both are equal.
Neither is greater than the other.

√Groovy

I am really happy that you agree that the bible needs an inerpreter, and that the Church is that interpreter . .

However . . Because it is the interpreter, it does not follow that it needs the bible to interpret in order to be able to proclaim the fulness of the truth ..

Sacred Tradition would still be full and complete . .

It just happens that part of it is in writing in the form of scripture . .

The Church is a living entity . .the Body of Christ .

The bible is not . . and neither is it the body of Christ . . it is not part of the Body of Christ in any way shape or form . .

It is a tool . .

How can a tool be equal to that Body of Christ which weilds it?

How is a sword equal to the man that weilds it?

It's not . . by itself it can do nothing . .

But if the man does not have his sword, he can still do what he needs to do, with other tools . .

The bible is a tool . . Paul tells us it is useful . .helpful . . never does he say it is necessary . .

The bible is a tool to be used by the Church . .

The Church is the Body of Christ and is the Bride of Christ . .

What can be equal to this?

Peace in Him!

Benedicta00 · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
True, very true. But the people of the Church are not infallible. Nor is their interpretation of the Bible infallible. And even people of the one Church can interpret the bible differently.

Are you suggesting that the Church is greater than the Bible? Rather than equal?

I have a problem with suggesting that the Bible is merely a 'book' since it is much more than a book. And it is much more than just 'inspired writing' It is the revelation of God.

√Groovy

Groovy,

Jesus left us a Church, he did not write a book of doctrines. His complete revealed word was left with us long before any words were put down in writing. With out the Church, the bible is taken out of context and error is born. It was the Church is who let us know us that the words of SS are true and trustworthy and it was the Church who let us know which writings were true, how did they know? Because Christ left us His truth with His Church long before there ever was a NT. We read the bible through the lens of the Church- this is how we know what it says objectively and not just what we want it to say.

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
Bible was being created in those first few centuries.

AND Those Christians/Jews did have the Scriptures, the Law. That is part of the Bible. The only thing they did NOT have was the New Testement. But the NT was being formed in that time, so it was impossible to have until it was completed. So yes, The Church needs the Bible. Without it... I think we know what would happen.

√Groovy

Hi Goovy . . I am really curious . .what do you think would happen?

Peace in Him!

Groovy · Nov 16, 2004

TLF, your first post was awesome! thank you!

It is worth quoting again if it were not so big.

I agree, and that did help with the clarity.

Can I call you by your name? TLF is so impersonal.

√Groovy

Benedicta00 · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
Yes, very nice.

I would agree that it is not the 'supreme' standard of truth, it is the standard of truth, but it is not the only standard of truth.

The only problem with Oral Tradition is that it can change.
Whereas Written Tradition is not changed.

The Church has changed a lot in 2000 years.

But the Bible is the same as it was when it was put together in... the first or second century.

√Groovy

Whats changed IYO? Sacred Tradition has not changed Groovy. You do realize there is Sacred Tradition which is Gods word and then there is just tradition which are rules and disciplines and Church laws? Those can change but ST can not and has not ever changed.

Try to understand that the Church, not the bible believers who have a bible in their clutches, but the Church was given the keys to the kingdom. What is Gods law can not ever change but Church laws can. You have to first know the difference between the two to know that the deposit of faith that Christ left with His Church has never change at all in 2000 years and never will.

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

Groovy said:
Do you remember how many times Jesus quoted passages from Scripture? Do you remember how many times the Jews of the time quoted passages from Scripture? They had the Prophets and the Laws. (Torah)... They had Scripture, and the early church had Scripture.

√Groovy

He quoted passages from scripture because that is what would be helpful to those listening . . When did He do so when He was talking to the common people?

Remember the teaching reagarding the scribes and pharisees and the Seat of Moses? Where is the seat of Moses found in scritpure?

He didn't turn to scripture . . He turned to their Sacred Tradition as the authoritative base for His teaching to obey them.

When he quoted scripture, it was always to the leaders of the Church .

When he taught the common people, he used stories, parables . . I am trying to remember on instance when he taught the common people from scriptures .. I can't think of one time . .

And notice that when he taught the sadducees, he only used the limited version of scripture they accepted . . when he taught the pharisees, he used the fuller set of scripture they accepted . .

He used the scriptures as was helpful to the situtation at hand . .

As Paul said . .they are useful . . helpful . .

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

Highway of Life said:
Did they forget to bring their Bibles?

Hi HofL

What do you mean "their bibles" ?? What bibles would they have had?

The bible is the canonized books of the Old and New Testament . .

That had not happened yet!

So what bible would they have had?

They had scriptures .. yes . . but they had not yet been canonized . . and there were other books foating around that were looked upon by some as scripture that were rejected for canonization.

What do you mean by Tradition? The Apostles heard Jesus first hand, then they wrote about him.

Is that all they did? Write about Him?

Where did Christ ever command them to write anything?

He commanded them to teach, to go and make disciples . .

Where does it say in the bible that everything they taught was written down by them?

They had the Torah, which is the Law. They had the books of the Prophets, the only thing they did not have, as Groovy said, was the NT.

HoLe In OnE

And? So? . . . .

What does that prove to us?

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower · Nov 16, 2004

St. Amadeus II said:
Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."

How did the early christians make do without a Bible? It's called the Old Testament. Even the words of the Apostles had to be examined.

The apostle Paul's USE OF the Old Testament had to be examined . .

Peace in Him!

Groovy · Nov 16, 2004

thereselittleflower said:
Why? The bible came out of our Sacred Tradition . . but Sacred Tradition would still contain the teachngs of the Church in their fulness if we didn't have the bible . . .

I am really happy that you agree that the bible needs an inerpreter, and that the Church is that interpreter . .

However . . Because it is the interpreter, it does not follow that it needs the bible to interpret in order to be able to proclaim the fulness of the truth ..

Sacred Tradition would still be full and complete . .

It just happens that part of it is in writing in the form of scripture . .

The Church is a living entity . .the Body of Christ .

The bible is not . . and neither is it the body of Christ . . it is not part of the Body of Christ in any way shape or form . .

It is a tool . .

How can a tool be equal to that Body of Christ which weilds it?

How is a sword equal to the man that weilds it?

It's not . . by itself it can do nothing . .

But if the man does not have his sword, he can still do what he needs to do, with other tools . .

The bible is a tool . . Paul tells us it is useful . .helpful . . never does he say it is necessary . .

The bible is a tool to be used by the Church . .

The Church is the Body of Christ and is the Bride of Christ . .

What can be equal to this?

Peace in Him!

The Bible is equal to this.

If it where still just Sacred Tradition, it would still just be the Bible, and the Bible is Sacred Tradition, since the Bible is made up of the Sacred Tradition. so it is the same thing. Without the Sacred Tradition, the church would have nothing.

Also, We do not have the right to say that God's main tool would not necessarily be needed by the church.

Also, the "useful"/"Helpful" depends on the translation you read

When Jesus talked to people, what did he use? He used Scripture, the Law, the Prophets. (The bible)

Also, what do we pattern our morals after? The Church? or the Bible?
We use the Bible of course.

The Church just interprets that Bible.

2 Tim 3:16 said:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Useful is in there, but so is thoroughly. Useful does not mean optional.

Useful: Full of use, advantage, or profit; producing, or having power to produce, good; serviceable for any end or object; helpful toward advancing any purpose; beneficial; profitable; advantageous; as, vessels and instruments useful in a family; books useful for improvement; useful knowledge;

Thoroughly: In a thorough manner; fully; entirely; completely

Also, Scripture is mentioned in the Bible 56 times, once in the OT and 55 times in the NT.

√Groovy

Sola Scriptura?

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ

Radical Middle -- Spirit, Word and Church

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ

Radical Middle -- Spirit, Word and Church

St. Amadeus II

Guest

Weisenheimer

Radical Middle -- Spirit, Word and Church

Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!

Evangelical Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evangelical Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evangelical Catholic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency