Sola Scriptura

[steve_bakr]

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

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.

I thought I did give the Church's position, which is, people are not held responsible if out of their ignorance they don't realize the Catholic Church is the true Church.

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

We are all obliged to follow the truth. When what the Catholic Church teaches rings untrue, then we are obliged to speak out against falsehoods too.

 

[steve_bakr]

Are you saying they're not saved?

No, I am not saying they are not saved. My wife is a Protestant and she is saved.

 

[dollarsbill]

I thought I did give the Church's position, which is, people are not held responsible if out of their ignorance they don't realize the Catholic Church is the true Church.

We've heard that before. So then, we who reject the Catholic church doctrines are still saved?

 

[steve_bakr]

We've heard that before. So then, we who reject the Catholic church doctrines are still saved?

It depends on whether you reject them out of ignorance or whether you reject them knowing that they are true. I would imagine that very few people reject what they know to be true so that most Baptised Protestants fall under the category of being saved.

 

[Albion]

I thought I did give the Church's position, which is, people are not held responsible if out of their ignorance they don't realize the Catholic Church is the true Church.

Ah. We are protected by our ignorance, just like the pagans who've never heard of Christ. That would also mean that we are not judged on anything else we do, either, so long as we mean well.

 

[SolomonVII]

We've heard that before. So then, we who reject the Catholic church doctrines are still saved?

Saved by your ignorance, one might add.

 

[steve_bakr]

Ah. We are protected by our ignorance, just like the pagans who've never heard of Christ. That would also mean that we are not judged on anything else we do, either, so long as we mean well.

So long as you follow the example and teachings of Jesus Christ to the best of your ability. And, no, Christians are not in the same category is pagans..

 

[steve_bakr]

Saved by your ignorance, one might add.

Well, you are a practicing Christian, aren't you? The Church recognizes Christians who are not Catholic. You are saved by your Baptism.

 

[Albion]

So long as you follow the example and teachings of Jesus Christ to the best of your ability.

So, if I consider Transubstantiation, Mariolatry, and Purgatory, for example, unscriptural and wrong, I'm still OK with God because I sincerely believe that. This seems an odd two-track path to salvation, if you ask me, in that you are obligated to believe such things under pain of sin and I am not, quite apart from whether or not they are true. However, that's just my reaction, not a complaint about your answer.

And, no, Christians are not in the same category is pagans..

How so?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

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 Scriptures are God-breathed, the Council didn't "decide" which was God-breathed, they search for it. They canonized the Scriptures but they did not decide what was Scripture. You might claim differently because they "compiled it" but you can't decided something that was God-breathed. Scripture was God-breathed before 314 AD, and those earlier Christians had not only the Scriptures but the gift of the Holy Spirit AND some where blessed with being eyewitnesses to the events. Rest assure, the Holy Scripture was here BEFORE 314 AD.

Yeah, there were some false writings out there but the Apostles warned the people of just that and told them to stay focus on the gospel that was being preached to them.

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 we think that the Scriptures were "authorized" by the Church? Did not the Holy Spirit write those Scriptures through men? Are not the Scriptures God-breathed? Who has the authority? Was it not GOD who authorized those writings? How does the Scriptures, authorized by God, transferred authorization because it was "compiled" by men? Think about this, the Old Testament was compiled by the Jews before 314AD, does that mean those who compiled it had "authority"?

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.

I"m not quite sure what you typed--don't know if you edit before you wrote to me--, but you didn't actually show anything about Holy Traditions or the authority of the church, you simply transferred authorization to the men who compiled Scripture and followed that tradition.

Does that make sense?

That doesn't answer the question, was the "bible" here even though not compiled before it was "compiled" in 314AD?

Actually this was the question:

What does it mean when it was asked: "What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled"?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

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:

LOL, thank God for God's word.

 

[steve_bakr]

So, if I consider Transubstantiation, Mariolatry, and Purgatory, for example, unscriptural and wrong, I'm still OK with God because I sincerely believe that. This seems an odd two-track path to salvation, if you ask me, in that you are obligated to believe such things under pain of sin and I am not, quite apart from whether or not they are true. However, that's just my reaction, not a complaint about your answer.

How so?

How so? Christians have entered into the life of Christ through Baptism.

 

[Fireinfolding]

LOL, thank God for God's word.

Amen to that

 

[Albion]

How so? Christians have entered into the life of Christ through Baptism.

I see. But the practical answer, which is what we had been discussing, remains the same. Salvation so long as you don't know the truth and are sincere about it.

 

[steve_bakr]

The Scriptures are God-breathed, the Council didn't "decide" which was God-breathed, they search for it. They canonized the Scriptures but they did not decide what was Scripture. You might claim differently because they "compiled it" but you can't decided something that was God-breathed. Scripture was God-breathed before 314 AD, and those earlier Christians had not only the Scriptures but the gift of the Holy Spirit AND some where blessed with being eyewitnesses to the events. Rest assure, the Holy Scripture was here BEFORE 314 AD.

Yeah, there were some false writings out there but the Apostles warned the people of just that and told them to stay focus on the gospel that was being preached to them.

So we think that the Scriptures were "authorized" by the Church? Did not the Holy Spirit write those Scriptures through men? Are not the Scriptures God-breathed? Who has the authority? Was it not GOD who authorized those writings? How does the Scriptures, authorized by God, transferred authorization because it was "compiled" by men? Think about this, the Old Testament was compiled by the Jews before 314AD, does that mean those who compiled it had "authority"?

I"m not quite sure what you typed--don't know if you edit before you wrote to me--, but you didn't actually show anything about Holy Traditions or the authority of the church, you simply transferred authorization to the men who compiled Scripture and followed that tradition.

Does that make sense?

That doesn't answer the question, was the "bible" here even though not compiled before it was "compiled" in 314AD?[/QUOTE]

The following verse shows that the Church has authority, being the pillar of truth:

1 Timothy 3:15 CPDV

"But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

1. What is and is not "Scripture" is not the topic of Sola Scriptura or of this thread. If you are disturbed and troubled by the reality that not a single other denomination agrees with the RC one on this matter (and never has), I can understand that - but that's a different subject for another day and thread. The praxis of the Rule of Scripture doesn't define what is Scripture any more than the praxis of the Rule of Law defines what is Law.

It's part of the topic. We're speaking about the word of God.

2. It's not the first century. It's the 21st. Surely, you know that.

Read what I was replying to, maybe then it will make sense why I said what I said.

So what? If you have other letters that Paul penned and believe them to be Scripture and thus are protesting your denomination's decision at Trent in the 16th Century, then start a thread and propose that such letter be added to the list of books your denomination regards as Scripture. Or even if you think such a letter is not Scripture but has some relevance to you in spite of it not being from God, then start a thread and post the entire verbatim content of such book.

If you don't want to be part of the conversation I am having, do me a favor and don't quote me.

We're not actually OFF topic, we're speaking about the Scripture.

 

[Albion]

That doesn't answer the question, was the "bible" here even though not compiled before it was "compiled" in 314AD

The following verse shows that the Church has authority, being the pillar of truth:

1 Timothy 3:15 CPDV

"But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

It has authority...to do what? The verse says nothing about any particular area of authority, just that the people (i.e. the household of God) are the foundation upholding the church (i.e. Christianity).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That doesn't answer the question, was the "bible" here even though not compiled before it was "compiled" in 314AD?

1. There is no praxis of Sola Biblica. Such doesn't even exist.


2. This thread is about using SCRIPTURE as the rule/canon/norma normans as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us. Unless you are disagreeing with the RC Denomination and don't regard the OT as Scripture (and/or the NT books), then your point seems irrelevant.


3. I also remind you that the date is 2012, it's not before 314. You know that.

The following verse shows that the Church has authority, being the pillar of truth:

1 Timothy 3:15 CPDV

"But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

1. You have misquoted the verse. The word "church" is not capitolized or stated as a proper noun or the partial moniker of a denomination in the verse.


2. No mention of "authority" at all. No mention of The Catholic Church or any other denomination at all. Did you notice that?


3. No mention here of any denomination among us being infallible/unaccountable and exempt from the issue of truth.





Thank you!


May God richly bless you in this Holy Week


- Josiah






.