Sola Scriptura

[daydreamergurl15]

Or that Christ never attended family events or that he ceased to exist from 6weeks old at his presentation to the Temple to 12years when he was found in the Temple with the Priests. What of his life from 12 to 30ish when he started his mission?

While you two are sharpening each other like iron sharpens iron, at what point will you guys see that we've already said that the Scripture was lived before it was written? And that, by the Holy Spirit, these guys went boldly speaking the gospel. And that the compilation of the Scriptures in 314 AD was not the say so of what Scripture is, it was first lived and then penned down by the inspiration of our God.

 

[SolomonVII]

Or that Christ never attended family events or that he ceased to exist from 6weeks old at his presentation to the Temple to 12years when he was found in the Temple with the Priests. What of his life from 12 to 30ish when he started his mission?

Whatever he did at those family events, or whatever his life involved from 12 until his baptism, is simply not authentic apostolic teaching. What is involved is myth and legend and folklore and fictional accounts that fill in that gap, fit only for the apocrypha already rejected as inauthentic by Christian orthodoxy, and for the eclectic Koran.

It is not surprising that people have always wanted to know more about this than what it written in scripture, and it is not surprising that stories have been written to fill in the gap and feed that hunger for more. What is contradictory is how Christian orthodoxy has based liturgy and dogma on accounts of Jesus and Mary that simply are not from the authenticated scripture, but follow the stories told by the apocrypha. That alone makes any future claims to infallibility less than credible.

 

[steve_bakr]

Whatever he did at those family events, or whatever his life involved from 12 until his baptism, is simply not authentic apostolic teaching. What is involved is myth and legend and folklore and fictional accounts that fill in that gap, fit only for the apocrypha already rejected as inauthentic by Christian orthodoxy, and for the eclectic Koran.

It is not surprising that people have always wanted to know more about this than what it written in scripture, and it is not surprising that stories have been written to fill in the gap and feed that hunger for more. What is contradictory is how Christian orthodoxy has based liturgy and dogma on accounts of Jesus and Mary that simply are not from the authenticated scripture, but follow the stories told by the apocrypha. That alone makes any future claims to infallibility less than credible.

There are many extra-biblical scriptural writings. I believe what you refer to as apocrypha are OT books contained in the Catholic canon.

It is interesting that you mention "authenticated Scripture," because I would suggest to you that such authentication took place through Holy Tradition and Church authority.

 

[Rick Otto]

A book can't contain all the wonders of Jesus Christ.

John 21:25 CPDV:

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written."

Totaly beside the point of SS.
SS is concerned with verifying spiritual truth only.
And in regards to spiritual truth, scripture isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may beperfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A book can't contain all the wonders of Jesus Christ.

John 21:25 CPDV: "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written."

What in the world does that have to do with Sola Scriptura?


Now, I guess, if you agree with the Mormons that Jesus not only did other things but also taught DOGMAS that the Holy Spirit chose to not include in His Scriptures but .... somehow (!?!?) it itself... somehow... learned about nonetheless, then, yes, I suppose that might have some relevance. But only if you can document such is the case. And it would be of little to no relevance if all the parties did not so agree. But again, John did not say that Jesus taught dogmas that the Holy Spirit chose to keep away from believers, he said that Jesus did some things that aren't recorded in the Gospel of Saint John.


This is not the thread about why the RC Denomination agrees with none (not even itself) on what is and is not Scripture. This is the thread about if we embrace accountability (which the RCC doesn't in the sole, singular, exclusive, unique, particular case of it itself alone), then WHAT is the most sound rule/norma normans for us today as we evaluate disputed dogmas among us. The embrace of Scripture as that rule is called "The Rule of Scripture" which Luther and Calvin also referred to as "Sola Scriptura."






.

 

[Montalban]

And absolutely no one claimed it did. But interestingly enough, it said that if everything was written down, the world itself couldn't contain it. So, are you telling me the Catechism contains all else that I need to know?

Even the Catechism would not be sufficient - Jesus is.

 

[Montalban]

There are many extra-biblical scriptural writings. I believe what you refer to as apocrypha are OT books contained in the Catholic canon.

It is interesting that you mention "authenticated Scripture," because I would suggest to you that such authentication took place through Holy Tradition and Church authority.

Even Protestants refer to biblical commentaries, and books by Luther or others

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Even Protestants refer to biblical commentaries, and books by Luther or others

Good for them

 

[Montalban]

Good for them

Indeed. It just shows that the Bible itself is insufficient. (Whilst still being true).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Indeed. It just shows that the Bible itself is insufficient. (Whilst still being true).

Ya gotta point there bro.
But they couldn't do commentaries on the Bible unless it first exist.

.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Even Protestants refer to biblical commentaries, and books by Luther or others

Refer to and taken then as "God's word also" are two different things.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Indeed. It just shows that the Bible itself is insufficient. (Whilst still being true).

The commentaries do not give us new revelation, all they do is comment on Scripture already written. Commentaries cannot be used as an example for "insufficiency" in the bible, because it doesn't not give us continuing revelation, it's more interpretation.

I personally don't use commentaries, but those who do tread lightly because you have to compare what they say and make sure what they claim is actually Scriptural.

 

[Albion]

Indeed. It just shows that the Bible itself is insufficient. (Whilst still being true).

So let's add tradition which also requires commentaries, catechisms, and numerous interpreters?

There's nothing sensible about doing that!

 

[Montalban]

Refer to and taken then as "God's word also" are two different things.

Yes, I'm not equating them to the bible. However it shows that the bible alone is not sufficient - this is evidenced in the bible itself when Philip meets an Ethiopian

Jesus is sufficient

 

[Montalban]

So let's add tradition which also requires commentaries, catechisms, and numerous interpreters?

There's nothing sensible about doing that!

Depends what it means by 'adds to'. As you know the dogma of the Trinity is not located in the bible.

 

[Albion]

Depends what it means by 'adds to'. As you know the dogma of the Trinity is not located in the bible.

The doctrine of the Trinity IS in the Bible. It's only the particular explanation of it that has become standard that is not.

 

[Montalban]

The commentaries do not give us new revelation, all they do is comment on Scripture already written. Commentaries cannot be used as an example for "insufficiency" in the bible, because it doesn't not give us continuing revelation, it's more interpretation.

Not quite. They may give a totally new reading of an existing text - which is a 'new' revelation.

I personally don't use commentaries, but those who do tread lightly because you have to compare what they say and make sure what they claim is actually Scriptural.

That's back to circular reasoning because your reading is - as you think - what scripture REALLY says, as opposed to an interpretation of it

 

[Montalban]

The doctrine of the Trinity IS in the Bible. It's only the particular explanation of it that has become standard that is not.

No. The 'doctrine of the Trinity' is the explanation.

Saying "The Trinity is in the Bible" is meaningless else it gives credence to different notions of the Trinity such as the Arian notion, etc.

The teaching "Your church must be headed by the Queen of England" is absent from the bible

 

[steve_bakr]

The doctrine of the Trinity IS in the Bible. It's only the particular explanation of it that has become standard that is not.

The Trinity as a dogma is inferred in Scripture but is not explicated by it.

 

[Montalban]

The Trinity as a dogma is inferred in Scripture but is not explicated by it.

The explanation is important. It's why they had an Ecumenical Council to affirm the teaching as the church always taught.

No dobut the Anglican church accepts both this explanation and the council that gave it.