The issues with Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

I just proved that it was derived from Holy Tradition.

No you didn't. You cited a heretic who said, almost 300 years after Christ, that the church had practiced infant baptism from early times, that's all. The books of the New Testament that speak of infant baptism were all in widespread use in the Christian world before this and considered to be inspired.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Catholicism had its origin in the cult of the circumcision, tinkering with the gospel to make up their own gospel. Their claim to authority and infallibility is illegitimate. We note that "the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 That is, Christians are to scrutinize all things in light of established scripture.

When scrutinized we find Catholic theology to be significantly deviant from scriptural theology. In fact Catholicism is about as far from scriptural Christianity as is Islam. But Catholicism has gotten away with its heresies because of this fallacious claim to infallibility and its insistence that it not be scrutinized.

It is written,
"Do not let anyone lead you astray." 1John 3:7
"Let no one deceive you with empty words" Eph 5:6

How is one to carry that out with regards to Catholic theology?

See proof
The Origin of the Catholic Apostate Church
Catholicism

Clearly you do not know the history of the Bible. Without the Church, the Bible would not have existed. Period. This is a historical fact and is not up for debate.

 

[Albion]

Without the Church, the Bible would not have existed.

This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.

She only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean. He didn't create it, you know; and neither did the institutional church "make" the Bible just because it put its stamp of approval on the books that were already in use.

 

[Thursday]

This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.

All of the books of the New Testament were written by members of the Church.

 

[Sibyl]

This is my understanding of the Bible and its creation. If you disagree please cite your sources. This will help me greatly with my Bible studies.
The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (self proclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church.
Mary Magdala, he Apostle closest to Jesus, was ostracized and driven from the continent by the male Apostles to die in a cave in France.
Many books excluded from the Bible seem to contadict or distract from the lifestyle and epiphany of Helena.
The old testament and the new testament seem to describe two different Gods. The old testament seems to be full of "fear and punishment" (the wrath of God), where as the new testament seems to promote "love and forgiveness" (the message of Jesus).
I accept the Bible as an imperfect history of the teachings of God and Jesus, written by man and interpreted differently by everyone who reads it. There was a reason that God only wrote the ten commandments and Jesus didn't write anything. What was the reason?
Please exclude the writtings of Paul in your hysterical criticisms of my heretical beliefs.
Sibyl.

 

[Wolf_Says]

This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.

She only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean. He didn't create it, you know; and neither did the institutional church "make" the Bible just because it put its stamp of approval on the books that were already in use.

Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I said the Bible, not the individual books. Though Thursday is correct in his statements that the authors of the NT books were members of the Church.

The Church did however have the burden of declaring whether these new books and letters were truly divinely inspired and therefore scripture. My argument is, that since they had the burden of deciding which books belonged and which did not, they therefore have the authority to interpret the Bible. This authority of course is given to the Church by God, because all authority comes from God.

 

[Albion]

Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I said the Bible, not the individual books.

Ah! So the big point you wanted us to know is that the Church collected the books we later called "the Bible" and put them into a single binding.

OK.

Though Thursday is correct in his statements that the authors of the NT books were members of the Church.

They were all Christians, yes. No one has disputed that, to my recollection.

 

[Thursday]

This is my understanding of the Bible and its creation. If you disagree please cite your sources. This will help me greatly with my Bible studies.
The Bible is an historical document commisioned by, and edited to, satisfy Helena Augusta (the mother of Roman Emporer Constantine). Helena directed and funded the building of many churchs and the preservation of religious artifacts.
Most of the books of the new testament were written by Paul, who was not an Apostle and who I consider a false (self proclaimed) profit. The purpose of Pauls letters to the churches seems to be to promote the authority and organization of the male leaders of the church.
Mary Magdala, he Apostle closest to Jesus, was ostracized and driven from the continent by the male Apostles to die in a cave in France.
Many books excluded from the Bible seem to contadict or distract from the lifestyle and epiphany of Helena.
The old testament and the new testament seem to describe two different Gods. The old testament seems to be full of "fear and punishment" (the wrath of God), where as the new testament seems to promote "love and forgiveness" (the message of Jesus).
I accept the Bible as an imperfect history of the teachings of God and Jesus, written by man and interpreted differently by everyone who reads it. There was a reason that God only wrote the ten commandments and Jesus didn't write anything. What was the reason?
Please exclude the writtings of Paul in your hysterical criticisms of my heretical beliefs.
Sibyl.

Jesus started a Church and told us to listen to the Church.

Do you listen?

 

[lesliedellow]

Clearly you do not know the history of the Bible. Without the Church, the Bible would not have existed. Period. This is a historical fact and is not up for debate.

Only if you define Church in its broadest sense - there had to be Christian believers before there could be a Bible. The New Testament canon emerged in the same way that the Old Testament canon emerged - gradually, by popular acclamation, and over a period of time. The second century would have been particularly pertinent to that process, when books believed to have been written by the apostles themselves, or by people who knew them, in the comparatively recent past, would naturally have been highly valued.

It is only Catholic laity you hear claiming that the Catholic Church compiled the canon; Catholic theologians are generally not so incautious.

 

[Wolf_Says]

It is only Catholic laity you hear claiming that the Catholic Church compiled the canon; Catholic theologians are generally not so incautious.

Incorrect, please do some history research on the creation of the Bible.

 

[Sibyl]

Please cite your sources in your comments. I am a novice.
Where in the bible does God or Jesus instruct man to create the Bible.
Arrogance and piety are not virtues.

 

[lesliedellow]

Incorrect, please do some history research on the creation of the Bible.

No, I am not incorrect. Your theologians would say that the Church did no more than recognise the scriptures which had been authored by God. The idea that there were no scriptures prior to 393 is a nonsense.

 

[Thursday]

Please cite your sources in your comments. I am a novice.
Where in the bible does God or Jesus instruct man to create the Bible.
Arrogance and piety are not virtues.

Jesus started the Church. He told the leaders of the Church to take his message to the world.

He gave them his authority to make rules(ie. bind and loose) and to forgive sins.

 

[Wolf_Says]

No, I am not incorrect. Your theologians would say that the Church did no more than recognise the scriptures which had been authored by God. The idea that there were no scriptures prior to 393 is a nonsense.

You misunderstand. I never said there was no scripture before 395*, because the OT was scripture and had been around long before then. It was the books of the NT that were not declared scripture until the late 4th century and therefore the Bible (which contains both the OT and NT) came into the world.
This is not to say that the books were not true prior to that, but there were also false books about Jesus floating around also claiming to be true, and these false books were being taught as true and causing heretical beliefs in some of the early Church. This is the reason why, in 395AD at the Council of Carthage, the bishops declared that no books shall be read in the mass besides the books that now reside in the Bible.

Please cite your sources in your comments. I am a novice.
Where in the bible does God or Jesus instruct man to create the Bible.
Arrogance and piety are not virtues.

This cannot be done. I have however cited my sources in my OP if you would kindly refer to those.

 

[lesliedellow]

You misunderstand. I never said there was no scripture before 395*, because the OT was scripture and had been around long before then. It was the books of the NT that were not declared scripture until the late 4th century and therefore the Bible (which contains both the OT and NT) came into the world.

The Council of Hippo was in 393, and Carthage in 397.

When it suits them, Catholics are apt to remind Protestants that they made their own determination of what should be considered scriptural at the Reformation. When it doesn't suit them, they prefer instead to tell Protestants that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible.

There are plenty of impeccably orthodox texts floating around, and some of them date from the first century, but they are not in Iraeneus's list of canonical books because they were known not to have been authored by the apostles, or by somebody at only one remove from them.

 

[Albion]

You misunderstand. I never said there was no scripture before 395*, because the OT was scripture and had been around long before then. It was the books of the NT that were not declared scripture until the late 4th century and therefore the Bible (which contains both the OT and NT) came into the world.
This is not to say that the books were not true prior to that....

Then there is nothing to dispute about the authority of Scripture.

 

[MichaelS]

So many new comments, so little time.

This is true. But neither did the Church create the books of the Bible.

She only recognized them in the way that Balboa found the Pacific Ocean. He didn't create it, you know; and neither did the institutional church "make" the Bible just because it put its stamp of approval on the books that were already in use.

Whether the first statement is true depends entirely on what is meant by "create". If "create" means to develop independently of any outside influence, including God, then certainly the Church did not "create" the Bible in that sense.

However, the Church most assuredly did not simply recognize the Bible as if it was some entity that came into existence independent of the Church. The books of the New Testament were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the apostles and their associates - i.e. the leaders of the Church - and they were written to instruct, admonish, and/or encourage the members of the Church. Their entire existence began in the Church and finds full meaning within the Church, and the Church recognized these particular writings as being "canonical", i.e. a true "measuring rod" of her faith, doctrine, and practice. The Church grew initially out of Israel, and the Old Testament has a similar relationship to Israel as the New Testament has to the Church.

 

[Wolf_Says]

When it suits them, Catholics are apt to remind Protestants that they made their own determination of what should be considered as scriptural at the Reformation. When it doesn't suit them, they prefer instead to tell Protestants that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible.

Well no, I remind them that Martin Luther decided what should be considered scripture. I fail to see your point in the matter.

The Council of Hippo was in 393, and Carthage in 397.

It is called the Synod of Hippo, and yes it was there that the biblical cannon was first approved, but then was later approved at the Council of Carthage in 397 and sent to Rome.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Ah! So the big point you wanted us to know is that the Church collected the books we later called "the Bible" and put them into a single binding.

It was the Church that declared them as divinely inspired. Prior to this there was no guarantee that the books for true or false.

Then there is nothing to dispute about the authority of Scripture.

Once again I never said Scripture has no authority, I said that it is not the Sole or Highest authority given the reasons in the OP, which is what SS claims.

 

[Albion]

However, the Church most assuredly did not simply recognize the Bible as if it was some entity that came into existence independent of the Church.

Well, now you've taken it upon yourself to qualify my statement by adding to it. I'd suggest stopping there and turning your attention to the point I actually did make, whether or not you agree with it.