Sola Scriptura

[dollarsbill]

I'm not the one with the problem of what happened before the bible came into being.

It's not a problem for me either.

 

[steve_bakr]

But which 'church'?

The Church which later divided into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. These are the closest to the original Church.

But I understand that all of the Protestant churches may appeal to different worship styles. My wife happens to be an evangelical Christian, so I can sympathize. But it is important to know that there are two Communions--RC and EO-- that represent as close to the true historical Church as you can be.

 

[dollarsbill]

The Church which later divided into Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. These are the closest to the original Church.

So where does that leave those who reject the doctrines of the churches you mentioned?

 

[steve_bakr]

So where does that leave those who reject the doctrines of the churches you mentioned?

Those Baptised Christians who reject the doctrines of either Church--through their ignorance-- can be saved. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold the inheritors of Protestantism responsible for being born into Protestant churches. And the Roman Catholic Church accepts all Baptisms that are done with water in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is why I did not have to become Baptized when I converted to Catholicism.

BTW, converting to Catholicism can be a very gradual process. It took me several years to completely embrace Catholicism. It begins by making inquiries and learning small amounts of information at a time.

With the famous convert Scott Hahn, who now teaches Catholic Theology, it started with questioning sola scriptura. He asked his fellow Protestant professors to prove Biblically the doctrine of sola scriptura. No one could do it. I'm talking about theology professors. They could not prove sola scriptura Biblically. That led to his research into Catholicism.

 

[Montalban]

It's not a problem for me either.

How do you judge churches that existed before the bible?

 

[Montalban]

So where does that leave those who reject the doctrines of the churches you mentioned?

Where does that leaven them? Outside the church.

 

[Albion]

Misdefining the meaning of "church" often leads to strange theories about "mine, not yours." Nothing in scripture indicates that baptism makes any believer better than any other believer in God's eyes.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

What do you mean, "before the bible was compiled"?
Are you claiming that the Scripture wasn't written or taught before it was compiled to the bible?

Let me ask you something, what is the bible made of?
Is it not a compilation of history, poetry, gospel, letters, etc... Is it not made of writings from Genesis to Revelations?
It is said that Revelations was the last book to be written around 60-68AD so did the people in 69 AD have the entire bible even though it was not bound?

How about those from 70-313AD? Did they have the entire bible with them even though it was not yet bound?

If the answer is yes, then what do you mean by your question, "What was used to judge before the bible was compiled?"

 

[steve_bakr]

So those Christians who converted FROM Roman Catholicism to another church cannot be saved?

If they left the Church on account of their ignorance, my hope is that they shall be saved. The teaching, as I understand it, is that if you leave the Church while knowing that its teachings are true, you then must return to the Roman Catholic Church to be reconciled with God.

Hint: Once you realize that sola scriptura cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, start attending a Catholic Church, and talk to the Priest or Deacon about RCIA so that you can inquire about the Catholic faith. Doing so does not obligate you in any way and it costs nothing. Out of my RCIA class of four, two elected to become Catholic and two elected not to.

 

[Albion]

If they left the Church on account of their ignorance, my hope is that they shall be saved. The teaching, as I understand it, is that if you leave the Church will knowing that its teachings are true, you then must return to the Roman Catholic Church to be reconciled with God.

And you believe that? An Old Catholic, perhaps, who accepts everything except the Church creating a previously-unheard of dogma like Papal Infallibility only in 1871, cannot be saved?

 

[Montalban]

Misdefining the meaning of "church" often leads to strange theories about "mine, not yours." Nothing in scripture indicates that baptism makes any believer better than any other believer in God's eyes.

Nothing about being in my church says that I'm better either.

 

[Montalban]

What do you mean, "before the bible was compiled"?
Are you claiming that the Scripture wasn't written or taught before it was compiled to the bible?

Compiling and writing are two distinct things.

Firstly, when Jesus taught, his teachings were oral. He used OT, but he also contrasted what he taught against the OT such as the "Love thy neighbour" lesson where he says "You have heard this... but I say..."

Then it was written down, either by a witness or a disciple of a witness.

You then have a book - e.g. The Gospel of John.

But it remained as itself, a single book

Centuries later it and other gospels were gathered together and were made into the bible

When they came to the task of compiling the bible there were dozens of books in circulation

See Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers for a number of books that existed just before 300

 

[steve_bakr]

And you believe that? An Old Catholic, perhaps, who accepts everything except the Church creating a previously-unheard of dogma like Papal Infallibility only in 1871, cannot be saved?

I didn't say that and I can't judge such a person. I thought that the question I was answering was about those people who left the Catholic Church, whether or not they can be saved. My answer is, I hope so. But if they know that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, they are obligated to return.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Compiling and writing are two distinct things.

Firstly, when Jesus taught, his teachings were oral. He used OT, but he also contrasted what he taught against the OT such as the "Love thy neighbour" lesson where he says "You have heard this... but I say..."

Then it was written down, either by a witness or a disciple of a witness.

You then have a book - e.g. The Gospel of John.

But it remained as itself, a single book

Centuries later it and other gospels were gathered together and were made into the bible

When they came to the task of compiling the bible there were dozens of books in circulation

See Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers for a number of books that existed just before 300

The 1st century Christians were well aware of the writings, Paul recommended them to pass along his letters and they were circulated among the church, Peter refer to Paul's writings as "hard to understand". Many people were eye-witnesses to the events that took place in the Scripture. Look at the Eunuch, He quoted from Isaiah, we see the sharing and passing along of Scripture in the Old and New Testament when many of the writers quoted from the Old Testament. And most importantly they had the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The idea that

"Centuries later it and other gospels were gathered together and were made into the bible"

is a strange notion that the parts weren't Scripture but the whole made it Holy. The book of John was still God breathed even as a single book and it's not more or less God breathed now that it's compiled with other Scriptures that were God breathed.

The first century Christians and everyone following had the Scripture, whether orally, circulating the letters or the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was always there. Yeah, there were some false books and letters out there but that's why Paul gave the advice in Galatians 1:6-8 as he did. But Scripture was still here. Scripture lived before it was written. And if you wonder what I mean by that, simply this, Jesus Christ was baptized in the Jordan river before it was written down that He was baptized in the Jordan river.

So my question is this, what exactly do you mean by

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

Scripture they had, which is the bible.

EDIT: Tried to rephrase some things.

 

[Albion]

I didn't say that

No, but you chose to answer the question asking about it.

and I can't judge such a person.

You usually answer such questions by citing the official position of the Catholic Church. What is ITS position, then?

As I recall, Dollarsbill asked the same question.

 

[dollarsbill]

Those Baptised Christians who reject the doctrines of either Church--through their ignorance-- can be saved.

Are you saying they're not saved?

 

[dollarsbill]

How do you judge churches that existed before the bible?

I don't.

 

[dollarsbill]

Where does that leaven them? Outside the church.

Are you saying all outside the "Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox" churches are not saved?

 

[steve_bakr]

Oh no...
The 1st century Christians were well aware of the writings, because even Paul recommended them to pass along the letters. Look at the Eunuch, He quoted from Isaiah, we see the sharing and passing along of Scripture even in the New Testament when many of the writers quoted from the Old Testament.

Orally or written, and rest assure Paul's letters were more written then they were orally, they had the bible. And most importantly they had the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The idea that

is a strange notion that the parts weren't Scripture but the whole made it Holy. The book of John was still God breathed even as a single book and it's not more or less God breathed now that it's compiled with other Scriptures that were God breathed.

The first century Christians and everyone following had the Scripture, whether orally, circulating the letters or the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was always there. Yeah, there were some false books and letters out there but that's why Paul gave the advice in Galatians 1:6-8 as he did. But Scripture was still here. Scripture lived before it was written. And if you wonder what I mean by that, simply this, Jesus Christ was baptized in the Jordan river before it was written down that He was baptized in the Jordan river.

So my question is this, what exactly do you mean by

Scripture they had, which is the bible.

The 1st Century Christians had many "letters" that were circulated around to the different churches. Yes, these were in existence and they were divinely inspired. There were many other writings passed around which were very edifying.

Finally, in the 3rd Century, a Church Council gathered to decide which of the writings ought to be considered Holy Scipture. This was called canonization and the resulting collection was known as the canon--ie., the Holy Scriptures.

The point is that the Church is what made those decisions and therefore "compiled" the Scriptures and put its stamp of authority on those Scriptures. So the answer to the question about who was the authority before Scripture was canonized is: the Church. The Bible was canonized by the authority of the Church.

So this supports the notion that it is not Scripture alone that determines doctrine. It is the combination of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the authority of the Church.

Does that make sense?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Its a reinactment of Acts 15 all over again

Certain men arose saying

"Except ye believe the assumption", ye cannot be saved.

Their letters might ressemble this

Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must believe in the assumption or spend eternity in hell: to whom we gave no such commandment: