Sola Scriptura

[Montalban]

Post #742 in no way helps the position of sola scriptura

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I think what we are encountering is the difference between Protestant thinking and Catholic teaching. We believe that the holy Church (which Paul has called the pillar of truth) is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit reveals himself, so that all those councils of bishops, including the ones that compiled and canonized the Scriptures we now have and who wrote the Creeds that we profess have not been the mere traditions of men, but are what consists of the sacred Tradition, AS DIRECED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I also observe that you are very bright and that I am not going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. I don't like to pursue the mentality that one of us must be proven "wrong". (That's no way to win anybody over anyway.) I simply reiterate the fact that we represent two different ways of thinking about the faith we share in common.

Forget about the differences of Protestant and Catholic thinking, my only thinking is, "does it line up with Scripture?" The Scripture is the one thing I know for a fact to be true, so anyone who claims anything else about God, if it does not like up with Scripture, then I'll disregard it.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So you don't need the Holy Spirit to guide you to/through scripture because that would be something else

Except not really...
The Holy Spirit wrote it through inspired men, and He helps us UNDERSTAND it just as we are told He would as said by 1 Corinthians 2.

Something else is adding another book and saying "hey, this too are God's word".

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Yes, I accept that's your reading of it.

Forget MY reading of it, READ what Scripture says.

 

[Montalban]

Forget MY reading of it,

Circular logic doesn't appeal to me.

By the way, who's your bishop?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Circular logic doesn't appeal to me.

By the way, who's your bishop?

At some point, you'll come to understand what circular logic mean.
As for whose my bishop, our congregation have 3 and you don't know them.

 

[Montalban]

And so we go in circles

Except not really...

Except really! And there you were saying you didn't just confine Jesus to a book, now you're back against that. It would also help if you could choose an argument and stick with it.

The Holy Spirit wrote it through inspired men, and He helps us UNDERSTAND it just as we are told He would as said by 1 Corinthians 2.

And yet the Ethiopian asked a deacon for help


So you can only experience Jesus to the limit of what the bible says.

That's like having a marriage where you choose only to experience life with your partner by what you read about him/her because anything else such as actually feeling an emotion goes beyond what is written

Something else is adding another book and saying "hey, this too are God's word".

So for you Jesus exists only to the extent of what is written. You for instance can't say he ever smiled, because it's not written and therefore you'd never be able to experience that, even if you eventually meet him... because if you experienced it, and it's not written then it's going 'beyond the bible'.

If you can tell me, by the Bible alone which formula of the Trinity to use.

The fact the word Trinity is absent is 'going beyond' it.

Please tell me (using the bible only) which of these best describes the Trinity (if any)

Homoiousianism

Homoianism

Heteroousianism

 

[Montalban]

I still don't get what's with the arguing everything at once.

Either Jesus can only be known by a book, ONLY or the book is a pointer to Jesus.

If there is nothing more I can know about Jesus than what I read then I would never be able to actually experience Jesus. It would be exactly like saying "I am married, but I can only know my wife by what I read about her and not by actually being with her"

The problem of arguing everything at once; that people can only know Jesus from a book, and that they aren't confining him to a book AT THE SAME TIME does nothing to sort things out.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

And so we go in circles


Except really! And there you were saying you didn't just confine Jesus to a book, now you're back against that. It would also help if you could choose an argument and stick with it.

It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book. You want to know why that would be hard? Because I was speaking about the Holy Spirit helping us UNDERSTAND Scripture NOT saying that Jesus was confined to a book.

And yet the Ethiopian asked a deacon for help

The Ethiopian most certainly asked Phillip to help him understanding it and because Philip was moved by the Holy Spirit so He taught the Ethiopian. Guess what? we have the Scripture of what was said. I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.

And you can say "well the men of the bible were not teaching what was in Scripture because Scripture was yet to be written" and you know I'll just say what I've always said, "Scripture was lived before it was written." It was still Scripture whether it was oral or written.

So you can only experience Jesus to the limit of what the bible says.

I'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.

That's like having a marriage where you choose only to experience life with your partner by what you read about him/her because anything else such as actually feeling an emotion goes beyond what is written

No, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.

So for you Jesus exists only to the extent of what is written. You for instance can't say he ever smiled, because it's not written and therefore you'd never be able to experience that, even if you eventually meet him.

What in the world?
Why would I take away human emotions away from Christ?

If you can tell me, by the Bible alone which formula of the Trinity to use.

The fact the word Trinity is absent is 'going beyond' it.

Please tell me which of these best describes the Trinity (using the bible only)

I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.

 

[Montalban]

It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book.

He's never said to smile in the bible therefore you can never experience this because it's not written. That's what YOU said. You can't go beyond what it says.

Guess what? we have the Scripture of what was said.

That's not so. It simply tells us what he was reading and that Phillip told him the good news

I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.

Based on circular logic.

And you can say "well the men of the bible were not teaching what was in Scripture because Scripture was yet to be written" and you know I'll just say what I've always said, "Scripture was lived before it was written." It was still Scripture whether it was oral or written.

What did Phillip teach the Ethiopian?

I'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.

I am going by what you said

No, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.

I'm going by what you said

What in the world?
Why would I take away human emotions away from Christ?

Show me the list of human emotions in the bible. Anything else is 'adding to the bible'

I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.

Doesn't answer my question

 

[Montalban]

Now we get into the 'Oh yes, Jesus must have smiled, I'll believe he did, even though it's not written'

Which is as I have pointed out, a case of having all arguments at once.

The nuances of Jesus as he taught aren't conveyed in the bible.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

He's never said to smile in the bible therefore you can never experience this because it's not written. That's what YOU said. You can't go beyond what it says.

This is the very thing I don't understand about your logic. You're so stuck on the idea that we don't "go beyond what is written" as meaning we think that Christ was a stoic Being doing nothing else but what Scripture has said... We don't suspend logic because Scripture doesn't write about Christ's emotions all that often.

That's not so. It simply tells us what he was reading and that Phillip told him the good news

And what is the good news or shall I say the gospel?
Doesn't Scripture tells us that it is Christ and Him crucified?

What did Phillip teach the Ethiopian?

Acts 8:35
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preaching Jesus to him...​

Philip preached Jesus.

I am going by what you said

I'm going by what you said

You're going by what you think I said and that's what's confusing you.

Show me the list of human emotions in the bible. Anything else is 'adding to the bible'

Do you not know how to do a word search in Scripture?
This is tedious and unprofitable.

Doesn't answer my question

And if you read my answer you would know that I don't have time too.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Now we get into the 'Oh yes, Jesus must have smiled, I'll believe he did, even though it's not written'

You do realize that you're the one bringing this stuff up.

Which is as I have pointed out, a case of having all arguments at once.

The nuances of Jesus as he taught aren't conveyed in the bible.

You keep making up false arguments for why Protestants hold Scripture so dear--first it was the false idea of "experiencing Jesus" and now "Jesus doesn't smile, can't go beyond what is written"-- and then you rationalize it in your head that you're so clever to avoid these types of false arguments that you yourself created as if to say that this is what protestants truly believe. That is your circular reasoning.

 

[steve_bakr]

Forget about the differences of Protestant and Catholic thinking, my only thinking is, "does it line up with Scripture?" The Scripture is the one thing I know for a fact to be true, so anyone who claims anything else about God, if it does not like up with Scripture, then I'll disregard it.

Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church do not contradict Holy Scripture.

 

[steve_bakr]

It would also help, if you would make your arguments clear and not muddle others. PROVE to me that I just confined Jesus to a book. You want to know why that would be hard? Because I was speaking about the Holy Spirit helping us UNDERSTAND Scripture NOT saying that Jesus was confined to a book.

The Ethiopian most certainly asked Phillip to help him understanding it and because Philip was moved by the Holy Spirit so He taught the Ethiopian. Guess what? we have the Scripture of what was said. I am not arguing that man do not have the authority to teach Scripture, I'm arguing that Scripture has the authority and we must teach what's in it and if someone claims that something else is "God's word too" it must not contradict.

And you can say "well the men of the bible were not teaching what was in Scripture because Scripture was yet to be written" and you know I'll just say what I've always said, "Scripture was lived before it was written." It was still Scripture whether it was oral or written.

I'm not going through this argument again with you. If you want to continue believing that we're speaking about "experiencing Jesus" as per Scripture, you can continue to believe so, just so you know that will be your stumbling block when it comes to why protestants believe in Scripture.

No, just no. Your theory about why we believe Scripture so much is false and your premise is getting worse.

What in the world?
Why would I take away human emotions away from Christ?

I don't use the term "Trinity", I use the term "Godhead" as said in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 and you most certainly can prove it through Scripture. If I used the term "Trinity" it's only because of the target audience who understand that term to mean "Godhead". I know I've spoken about that topic often, but as for discussing that topic here, would be too much as I have to go to work soon.

Within your post you have identified two Catholic principles. One is that, if something else is considered alongside Scripture--ie., oral Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church--then it must not contradict Scripture. The other is that the oral teaching of the Apostles--ie., Tradition--is also God-breathed.

 

[HisKid1973]

Within your post you have identified two Catholic principles. One is that, if something else is considered alongside Scripture--ie., oral Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church--then it must not contradict Scripture. The other is that the oral teaching of the Apostles--ie., Tradition--is also God-breathed.

So you don't think all the oral teachings of the original apostles was all put to letter say by the first century ? You say the bishops were given more teaching that the original apostles didn't have with the faith once delievered? What are some of the "oral" Traditions that the original apostles didn't know..See when I read "faith once delivered", I wonder what else did we need that wasn't given with the foundation laid of all the original apostles/prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.

 

[steve_bakr]

So you don't think all the oral teachings of the original apostles was all put to letter say by the first century ? You say the bishops were given more teaching that the original apostles didn't have with the faith once delievered? What are some of the "oral" Traditions that the original apostles didn't know..See when I read "faith once delivered", I wonder what else did we need that wasn't given with the foundation laid of all the original apostles/prophets with Christ as the cornerstone.

HisKid,

What is written in Holy Scripture, I believe along with Protestants, is sufficient for Salvation. But no, everything was not written down because, as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the things about Jesus cannot be contained in books.

I want to make it clear that I am not saying that Protestants lack any component of Salvation because of their strict adherence to Scripture alone. There is a lot to be said for the Protestant's love of Scripture and I think many Catholics admire that quality and even try to emulate it.

But we Catholics do believe that sacred Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church--all in combination with each other--present a more complete view of our Christian faith.

If you want specific examples of the teaching that Tradition provides--each of which would probably require its own thread--some are the confirmed notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic form of worship handed down to us (ie., the Liturgy of the Word plus the Liturgy of the Eucharist), an explanation of the Trinity (ie., the Athanasian Creed), teachings regarding the Mother of our Lord, including her Immaculate Conception, the concept of the communion of saints, and others.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

HisKid,

If you want specific examples of the teaching that Tradition provides--each of which would probably require its own thread--some are the confirmed notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Catholic form of worship handed down to us (ie., the Liturgy of the Word plus the Liturgy of the Eucharist), an explanation of the Trinity (ie., the Athanasian Creed), teachings regarding the Mother of our Lord, including her Immaculate Conception, the concept of the communion of saints, and others.

There was a good debate on that doctrine some time back

http://www.christianforums.com/t7274365/#post48257502
The Immaculate conception of Mary!

Originally Posted by Athanasias First off I want to say the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit......*snip*

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

everything was not written down because, as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the things about Jesus cannot be contained in books.

Actuallly, John penned that not everything Jesus DID is contained in his Gospel book. He did not say that Jesus taught DOGMAS that the Holy Spirit chose to keep out of His Scriptures but somehow (no one knows how) someone - centuries later, someone who ever met Jesus - suddenly would remember this dogma or dogmas that the Holy Spirit chose to not tell us.


I think it is at least possible("All things are possible...." Scripture twice tells us) that Jesus taught some teaching that the Holy Spirit chose to not convey to us. No one can substantiate this, but it remains a theoretical possibility - one on which the LDS is based. But as we say in scientific research (my field), "you don't know what you don't know." And it seems best to ME to not substantiate unique dogmas on what isn't known, it seems better to ME to substantiate it on what IS known.

If you want specific examples of the teaching that Tradition provides--each of which would probably require its own thread--some are the confirmed notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Since 1551, the RC Denomination has a unique Eucharistic dogma: Transubstantiation. I don't agree with you that this is confirmed by Scripture - or even that it is confirmed by Tradition. It is a medieval invention of one denomination: yours.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodists affirm Real Presence by affirming - literally - what the Eucharistic texts say ("the meaning of is is is"). But none agree with the RC Denomination (especially as DOGMA) that the biblical texts teach specifically Transubstantiation. The RC Denomination in 1551 simply separated itself from the rest of Christianity and 1500 years of history by proclaiming this DOGMA, ironically at a point that all regard as uniting

teachings regarding the Mother of our Lord, including her Immaculate Conception.

Interesting you'd again pick a DOGMA totally unique to your denomination, one nearly all (even Catholics) agree is abiblical.




Yes, if self alone agreeing with self alone is the embraced rule for the correctness of a position, then everyone is correct, aren't they?

But self looking at self to see if self agrees with self is NOT the RCC alternative to the Rule of Scripture. It has no alternative. It has no alternative for one very simple reason: it doesn't permit any rule in the singular case of itself. It itself alone simply declares that it itself alone cannot be wrong, it is infallible, when it itself speaks Jesus is speaking, and thus it itself alone simply exempts itself from the whole issue of norming (and thus any and all norma normans). It's not SCRIPTURE it rejects when it rejects Sola Scriptura, it's accountability it rejects - in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[HisKid1973]

HisKid,

What is written in Holy Scripture, I believe along with Protestants, is sufficient for Salvation. But no, everything was not written down because, as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the things about Jesus cannot be contained in books.

So things were important that weren't written down came after the original apostles that they didn't know when the church was established. It just doesn't make sense, we know books can't contain it but Christ knew when the church was established what needed to be written. Remember just because somethingis an old established practice doesn't mean it's automatically correct. Don't you think when we are judged for our works it will be according to how we were obedient to Him through following His words penned via the Holy Spirit through the apostles.
It sure won't be judged on following traditions that came after the apostles..