Sola Scriptura

[Catherineanne]

Given the nature of the proclamation of Sola Scriptura, it seems a reasonible expectation that the doctrine itself would be proclaimed IN Scriptures.

Otherwise, you must appeal to some OTHER norma normans in order to establish the principle that Scripture is the norma normans, and at the point that you do that, you undermine the principle itself.

Not saying you can't make the case from Scripture (I don't think you can, but many reasonible people do and I'm certainly far from omniscient)... but the EXPECTATION seems like a reasonible one.

IF sola scriptura is correct THEN we'd expect to find the doctrine stated explicitly within the scriptures.

Just like IF the Pope's authority is truly Apostolic Tradition THEN we'd expect to find evidence of it among the Apostles writings or those of their immediate successors (who could witness to what the Apostles practiced, being eyewitnesses thereof).

Quite right.

 

[MamaZ]

When it comes right down to the nitty gritty when face to face with Christ do you think He will hold you accountable for What has been written? If not why not?

 

[Montalban]

Well since we all will be held accountable for what is written I would say the most highest.

Where in SS does it say this?

 

[MamaZ]

Where in SS does it say this?

Read the Gospels.. Jesus brought them to the written..He held every question they had for Him to the written..

 

[MamaZ]

Do you believe that you are going to be held responsible to what has been heard? Or to what has been handed down as tradition? Are you going to be held responisible for what men says or what God has said that has been written?

 

[MamaZ]

This is why we have the written scriptures to hold as our authority to what is of the Spirit of God and what is not. We are all accountable to God. there will be a day of reckoning. To what do you believe men will be held accountable for?

 

[Montalban]

I have made an effort to answer your questions you just haven't been willing to see them as answers. Sometimes, yes, I'll ask a question in response to one of your questions. Even Jesus used this as a valid way of teaching. The answers to my questions will lead you to your answer.

I have bumped forward an unsanswered question see #128

You wanted a reason for using Scripture alone. I had asked:

There's no need for repeating what has been said.

If you were to answer these questions correctly...you would have found out that Scripture does not contradict itself. I believe you brought up some "beat around the bush" excuse concerning differring interpretations, but it was obvious I was assuming under correct interpretation the Scriptures never do contradict themselves.

We can have different interpretations of Scripture not contradicting themselves.

However I have not beat around the bush. I have said categorically that I believe it's not in error, because the church tells me so. You may have missed that

However, the same cannot be said about Tradition. Some writers clearly believed something completely different than other writers.

I understand your point, but you ignoring mine about the Didache doesn't add to debate

Scripture is a more sure and always correct source to use. Period.

Well Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture, and visa versa. You leap upon some teachers of it to say that yes, they're incorrect therefore tradition can't be relied upon. But that's not the case because the church has always taught the truth. Given that we can have several different interpretations/teachings FROM scripture as we can, from tradition, then you don't have a point.

You: Which is the Scriptural statement saying only Scripture contains inerrant teachings?

Many NT writers claimed inspiration within various books, do any of the early church fathers claim inspiration?

And you accuse me of beating around the bush.

2 Timothy 3:16 states that ALL Scripture is God-breathed.

That's a slight of hand.

There's a difference between
Scripture is wholly true
to
Scripture is the whole truth.

I asked you proof for the second, you give me proof for the first.

Nothing God-breathed is in error. The NT writers always used Scripture to back up their claims. From Scripture it is clear that it used as an authority and is an authority.

And so you go on proving something I've not asked you to prove

Do you mean your institutionalize church, or the church of all believers? The church of all believers was most likely started on Pentecost.

There is no difference. The church consists of laity and clergy

The apostles inerrant teachings were written down to preserve this inerrancy and to establish a primary source to cross-reference oral teachings.p

1.a) where in scripture does it say this
b) where in scripture does it say that they would only regard scripture as containing this truth
2. did the bible books authorise themselves.

Oral tradition has a habit of either changing and/or adding/substracting to teachings.

prove that this has happened.

You asked if I ever heard of them. Yes. The Jesus Seminar creates a Jesus who is separated from both his cultural setting and his followers, plus their voting system is seriously flawed.

Then you recognise my point

Do you agree with their findings?

It's irrelevant. Your challenge to me was to prove a belief in Jesus not reliant upon his death and resurrection - and I did this. In point of fact many non-Christians also believe in God and Jesus.
"For "the devils also believe and tremble," as the Scripture tells us."
Augustine - Homily X.

There's also shades of 'semi-Christian' beliefs. Hong Xiuquan believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus.

I mentioned heretics who believed in the Bible.

Evidence?

Yes indeed. Here it is again!
*sigh*

Jesus also gave the parable of the man who wasn't saved for not visiting prisoners, feeding the poor, etc. (Matthew 25:39
When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?')

Because faith without works is dead (James 2:17)

See also Titus 1:16 ('doing good').

So putting your God to the test doesn't matter?

Sometimes I dont think you actually read my posts, but this proves me wrong.

Projection

I was using it as an an example that our positions on non-salvific beliefs wont matter on the Day of Judgement.

Thank you for repeating your just-so statement.

This is again another Protestant howler. Do you believe that the 'man-made' traditions you claim I believe in affect my salvation? I believe in Jesus and have 'faith' in him. So is it alone enough that I have faith, or are you going to contradict yourself and say what matters is how I believe in salvation?

Faith that doesn't produce good deeds, isn't real faith is it? So, of course once God provides you the faith you need, good works will follow.

Do the good works matter, or not? Yes, or no?

This is how you know if someones has dead faith or real faith. Faith and good works go hand and hand. But it wasn't the works that saved us, it was God's grace through faith He provided. Every (sic) read Galations?

I've read all the NT

 

[Montalban]

Read the Gospels.. Jesus brought them to the written..He held every question they had for Him to the written..

*sigh*

But he also contrasts what he teaches with what is written. Look at the parable of the Good Samaritan.

He says "You have heard 'Love thy neighbour' BUT I say..."

So he's not saying "Go read the OT and learn what it says", but learn instead what he is then and there teaching.

 

[Montalban]

This is why we have the written scriptures to hold as our authority to what is of the Spirit of God and what is not. We are all accountable to God. there will be a day of reckoning. To what do you believe men will be held accountable for?

I'll ask you again, since you're determined to avoid answering my question.

Where in Scripture does it say to use Scripture as the ultimate authority?

Did Scripture compile itself?

 

[Montalban]

Protestants here seem very confused.

When I ask where in scripture does it say all truth is to be held in scripture, I get only that scripture holds the truth. This is not the same thing as saying only scripture holds all the truth.

Protestants are here to argue against Catholics, Orthodox, et al, about how/what we do, even though we have faith in Jesus and believe he died for us. But whilst they want to argue it doesn't matter what one does they want to argue what we do

They avoid questions about how Scripture compiled and authorised itself.

Whilst I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I also believe other 'scripture' is also not erring, such as the Didache. Where does it say that the Didache is, or is not, errant? (or inspired)

 

[MamaZ]

Did the ECF write the scriptures? nope they only gathered what was already written. Has any of the ecf's written scripture that has been cannonized? What question? Read the Gospels.. He directs all men to it is written. He even directs the devil himself to it is written.. Do you believe He would direct any of His children to something else other than it is written?

 

[MamaZ]

Joh 17:15 "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
Joh 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Joh 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
Joh 17:18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;

 

[Montalban]

Did the ECF write the scriptures? nope they only gathered what was already written. Has any of the ecf's written scripture that has been cannonized? What question? Read the Gospels.. He directs all men to it is written. He even directs the devil himself to it is written.. Do you believe He would direct any of His children to something else other than it is written?

Well you obviously don't understand what canonization (one 'n') is.

There were various canons of the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

If you bother to read you'll see that Clement of Alexandria canonized the Didache.

Why you choose one is because you do, because you do. You must be related to Sunlover both for not answering direct questions with direct answers and for application of circular logic

 

[MamaZ]

who cares who cannonized what. What is of great concern is what is in the content of what is cannonized and can be proven to be of the Spirit of God with the whole counsel of the written scriptures..

 

[MamaZ]

Well you obviously don't understand what canonization (one 'n') is.

There were various canons of the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

If you bother to read you'll see that Clement of Alexandria canonized the Didache.

Why you choose one is because you do, because you do. You must be related to Sunlover both for not answering direct questions with direct answers and for application of circular logic

I am related to sunlove.. We are sisters in the Lord bought and paid for with the blood of Jesus and sealed with Gods Spirit for the day of redemption..

 

[Jig]

However I have not beat around the bush. I have said categorically that I believe it's not in error, because the church tells me so. You may have missed that

How do you know what your church tells you is the truth?

I understand your point, but you ignoring mine about the Didache doesn't add to debate

Your so big on Tradition being an excellent source for truth, yet, you disagree with Tradition about leaving out the Didache from the canon on the NT. Strange. Why was it left out agian?

Well Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture, and visa versa.

There is plenty of Tradition not to be found within Scripture. How are we to know this knowledge came from a true apostolic source or that it wasn't changed somewhere along the lines?

You leap upon some teachers of it to say that yes, they're incorrect therefore tradition can't be relied upon.

Early writers wrote in disagreement with each other all the time, however, an assumption is implied that the majority consensus must hold the truth. That opinion cannot be proven, and history as showed many times, the majority consensus can be wrong. Remember the seven churches in Revelation? Only one small and weak church was being faithful and was practicing correctly.

But that's not the case because the church has always taught the truth.

So your church is always right because they told you they are always right?

Given that we can have several different interpretations/teachings FROM scripture as we can, from tradition, then you don't have a point.

I disagree.

And you accuse me of beating around the bush.

You did.

That's a slight of hand.

There's a difference between
Scripture is wholly true
to
Scripture is the whole truth.

I asked you proof for the second, you give me proof for the first.

Okay, prove to me your Tradition is wholly true...but wait, many of its writers held contradictory beliefs.

I guess that leaves only Scripture as wholly true.

There is no difference. The church consists of laity and clergy

Would you agree that I am part of the true church?

1.a) where in scripture does it say this

Many of Paul's letters imply this. In asking me this you must have disagreed with my statement. Why do you disagree with it?

b) where in scripture does it say that they would only regard scripture as containing this truth

Again Paul stated "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", this is never stated of Tradition. Sure Tradition can hold truth and is great for understanding history, but it obviously it isn't wholly true.

2. did the bible books authorise themselves.

So, how did the early church determine if a epsitle was inspired? You make it sounds like it had nothing to do with what was written within the epistle/book.

prove that this has happened.

Example: Papal primacy.

Then you recognise my point

It's irrelevant. Your challenge to me was to prove a belief in Jesus not reliant upon his death and resurrection - and I did this. In point of fact many non-Christians also believe in God and Jesus.
"For "the devils also believe and tremble," as the Scripture tells us."
Augustine - Homily X.

There's also shades of 'semi-Christian' beliefs. Hong Xiuquan believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus.

I mentioned heretics who believed in the Bible.

These people you bring up are in the minority. I said the majority of Christian churches are in agreement on what is salvific.

Yes indeed. Here it is again!
*sigh*

Oh! Evidence as in your personal interpretation on these select few verses. I see now.

This is again another Protestant howler. Do you believe that the 'man-made' traditions you claim I believe in affect my salvation? I believe in Jesus and have 'faith' in him. So is it alone enough that I have faith, or are you going to contradict yourself and say what matters is how I believe in salvation?

Huh? I don't think your traditions effect your salvation directly. However, indirectly...that is a different matter. Its hard to stay on the road when there is thick fog around you.

Do the good works matter, or not? Yes, or no?

For salvation no. Did the theif on the cross have time to do good works?

 

[Jig]

If you bother to read you'll see that Clement of Alexandria canonized the Didache.

While others did not think it fit for canonization. Another example of Tradition being in contradiction with itself.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Catherineanne, please read the following very carefully.

In the words of the immortal Bare Naked Ladies, it's all been done before.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well Holy Tradition does not contradict Scripture, and visa versa.

1. IMHO, this is a remarkably irrelevant point. One's own views not CONTRADICTING Scripture is zero substantiation that they are in agreement. One could say that Mary was 8 feet tall, had pink hair and a hankering for fish tacos. Does any of that CONTRADICT Scriptures? No. Scripture says nothing whatsoever about Mary's height, hair color or tastes in foods. But does that mean that therefore those teachings are normed as dogmatically correct? No. Your point here (usually made by Mormons and not by Catholics or Orthodox) simply evades the point: They may not be biblical, and what is happening is nothing other than the Tradition is being made the Rule/Canon for the self-same - creating nothing more than a perfect circle of self-authentication that has no other possible result but to say that teaching agrees with the teaching. This has nothing to do with whether it is true.

2. All this is even more moot and meaningless since in the RCC and LDS (I don't about in the EO or OO), the "Scripture" of which you speak is not the Scripture on the page but rather "in the heart" of the denomination - as the denomination itself alone UNDERSTANDS and INTERPRETS it. Once more, the RCC and LDS appoint itself alone as the sole arbiter for addressing the issue of whether the teaching of self "CONTRADICTS" the Scripture in its own heart as its own self arbitrates. Read some of the writings of the Mormon Apostles, Prophets and Fathers and I'm very confident you'll discover just how meaningless and useless this rubric you are suggesting actually is.

because the church has always taught the truth.

IF by "church" you mean any specific singular denomination (RCC, EO, LDS, OO, WELS, UMC), then I find the absolute claim as unsubstantiated. BUT, I find your remark very central to understanding all the "issues" that the RCC and LDS have with Sola Scriptura. Since they both insist that they are infallible/unaccountable and "wherever hears me (alone) hears Jesus" then the REAL issue that they reject is accountability - not Sola Scriptura. They are actually against ANY norm, any canon, any arbitration. "A waste of time since I myself alone declare that I myself alone can't be wrong in matters of faith." Ooookkkaaayyyyyyyyyy .... Of course, anyone can claim anything, I suppose (ego permitting). It doesn't make it true - it just makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ever know if it is true.


But yes, for ANY praxis of norming, there needs to be the position that truth matters, that error is potential, and that a teacher is not necessary correct because he himself so declares that he himself alone is. If you disagree with these points, then any and all praxis in this regard will be viewed as a waste of time - whether that praxis embraces Scripture as the norma normans or some other.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Well since we all will be held accountable for what is written I would say the most highest.

Actually, the Bible says we will be held accountable for our actions, thoughts, and words. It really doesn't say anything at all about accountability for other people's writing.