Sola Scripture?

Matt,

Your posts are what betray you.

Your posts are what you have said. Your posts generally contain classic almost word for word Catholic Church of Rome apologetics and attempts to hoodwink those you are adressing.

There are a whole lot of people here on this site who are strong enough in their faith and scriptural understanding, and knowledgable enough of Catholicism, that they cant be hoodwinked.

Mike

 

Knowing that Matt's purpose is not to make an apology for the RCC, I can safely say that Mike's accusations towards him are false, and that they are likely born out of a rabbid Romaphobia which deafens him to the voice of reason and prevents him from seeing anything other than "Romanism" under every catholic (little "c") rock of reason which argues strongly against his own peculiar Protestant position...I guess that's one way to go about trying not to be "hoodwinked"

I could just as easily proclaim that Mike's posts portray a certain kum-ba-yah relativism. But I won't--I'm not here to rejoin an endless debate; just to make an observation.

 

Where is the source for Iraeneus?
Which letter are you talking about?

 

Where is that in scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]Instead of reading your catechism, anti-Biblical Catholic apologists, and Catholic propaganda, why don't you read and study the Bible itself. Sola Scriptura is one of the most hated doctrines of the Catholic Church because it denies to them the right to have the authority to dictate whatever they want to their people. It takes away their authority. Thus they say: "You can read the Bible "now" but you can't interpret it. Only the priest has the power to give the interpretation (which of course is the interpretation of the magesterium). Before Vatican II, Catholics were not able to read the Bible at all. It was forbidden. In the days of Tyndale, they gathered up all they could of the translations of Tyndale's Bible and burned them. They did not want the Bible in the hands of the common person. The essence of that is still true today. Sola Scriptura is one of the most hated doctrines of the RCC, and yet at the same time one of them most Biblical.
Ironically, the Catholic revisionists blame sola scriptura on the Reformers when the Reformers (yes, even Luther) didn't even use sola scriptura themselves. The Reformers (former Catholics) tried to reform the Catholic Church from within but failed. But they still kept their same method of Bible study. They went back the the ECF to check if their interpretation of the Bible matched up with the ECF. That is how they did their Bible Study. The relied much on the ECF. That is not sola scriptura. Yet the revisionist history of the Catholics want to put the blame on Luther and other Reformers for introducing sola scriptura into Biblical history at that time. FALSE!
Get to know your history better.

It is a Biblical doctrine practiced by both Old Testament saints and Bible-believing Christians since the beginning of time, as in the time of Moses onward.
In the time of Moses the Israelites had to check everything according to the Law. Have you ever heard the phrase: "In the law it is written..."
It is an appeal to Scripture. Scripture was the authority. It was the only authority, the sole authority of faith and practice. A boy was stoned because he picked up sticks on the Sabbath day. The authority for the action taken was the Law, the Word of God. Scripture was appealed to.

The exact phrase "in the law it is written" is used 14 times in the Bible.
However, the phrase "Thus saith the Lord," is used 430 times.
It is an appeal to Scripture, the Words of God. The Words of God, the Scripture were authoritative. They were the sole authority of faith and practice for the Jews.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--The essence of this verse is: If you do not believe in sola scriptura it is because there is no light in you.
Every thing you believe must be measured by the law and the testimony of the Word of God. That is our authority. If it is not according to the Word of God, there is no light in you. You are not saved. This is sola scriptura.

It was practiced by believers in the New Testament:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--Here Paul calls the believers of Berea "noble" because they searched the Word of God daily in order to check Paul and see if what he said was according to the Word of God--their standard of faith and practice. The great Apostle Paul, the author of 13 books of the New Testament, was not to be taken lightly. Even his words were to be checked against the one inspired book, the Bible. The Bible is the only standard that we have. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. And Paul commended them for doing this. He called them noble. This is what every believer should do when they hear the teaching or preaching of the Word of God. Check it with the Word of God. Make sure it is in accordance with the Word of God.
That is why we don't rely on the ECF. Not everything they say is in accordance with the Word of God. Their writings are not inspired nor infallible. Older is not always better. They were prone to mistakes. The Bible is our only authoritative guide in all matters of faith and practice, not the writings of other men. Even the Reformers had it wrong in this area.
This is a Biblical doctrine practiced from the time of Moses onward by all believers.
DHK

 

Doubting Thomas,

Noooooooo, of course not!

You can "safely" say anything you want. There are no inquisitions going on here.

Of course, it has nothing to do with being "Romaphobic", it has to do with understanding what the Catholic Church is in truth.

Those who use Gods scriptures as their truth standard are the ones who will not be "hoodwinked" by Romes lies and distortions.

Mike

 

The Church of England is also a holy catholic church (not Roman), and based solely on the scriptures. Not every church is Roman, although I think there are even Baptist churches in Rome.

Cheers,

Jim

 

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Sabbath to Sunday…

not from any directions noted in the scriptures, but from the Church’s sense of it’s own power…

People who think that the scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.”
-Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Sentinel, May 21, 1995

at least they know what Sola Scripture means and they also know most Protestants who claim Sola Scripture are doing what the Catholic Church says to do instead of what the Scriptures say to do on many points.

 

From the beginning, the day of worship was "The Lord's Day", not the sabbath.

Passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, the first day of the week, instead.

"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Of course, by going sola scriptura, you have to throw out sola scriptura because it's nowhere in the bible, and it leaves you without a canon of books to read from. By assuming even those 27 NT books, you're already giving creedence to the Churches binding and loosing authority in such matters.

...and again, not specifically a Catholic issue...and I don't believe Church Bulletins are infallible, but I could be wrong

Indeed, they will hoodwink themselves.

Sure. And? Are you denying then that we need the NT?

Right. The OT scriptures...

That's right. And that's why the Berean's rejected sola scriptura.

They listend to Paul, and accepted what he said on-top of scripture, seeing it as the fulfillment of what was prophecied. The Thessilonicans in acts 17 rejected Paul. Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" in the synagogue, as was his custom. They did not revile Paul the first week or the second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul’s message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong.

[ April 26, 2006, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Living_stone ]

 

Your posts are what betray you.

Your posts are what you have said. Your posts generally contain classic almost word for word Catholic Church of Rome apologetics and attempts to hoodwink those you are adressing.

There are a whole lot of people here on this site who are strong enough in their faith and scriptural understanding, and knowledgable enough of Catholicism, that they cant be hoodwinked.

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]And you miss the point that there are denominations other than Catholic who adhere to the same principles of Scripture+Tradition for the same reasons eg: Methodists, Anglicans, Orthodox etc. Te fact that they - and indeed I - happen to agree with the Catholic Church on this point doesn't make us 'Catholic apologists'; it just means that we agree with them on that issue - because they happen to be right.

So drop the labelling...or I really will turn into Gollum!

 

The Tradition can be respected as we read 1 Corinthians 11:2.
The problems and questions are these:

1) What should be the priority when Tradition contradicts Scripture?

2) Is Bible Scripture insufficient to teach us in all truth?

My answer to 1) is that Tradition cannot supersede Bible Scripture.

My answer to 2) is that Scripture is sufficient to teach us in all Truth.

The Traditions which we can keep and respect are the one which are acceptable in compliance with Bible. For example if we have the tradition of having Lord's Supper once a week, it doesn't contradict the teaching in 1 Cor 11:25-26 which says " hosakis" meaning "as often as whenever".
If the women wear the coverings, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 11:1-16. Otherwise, the women should be shorn as we read 11:6.
Other matters should be left free at the discernment of the local churches.
However, if anyone insist on any Tradition which contradict Bible Scripture, that Tradition must be abolished.

For example, let's say we establish the rule that all the priests must keep the celibacy, then we find the contradiction in 1 Tim 3:2 ( mias guinakos andra). In such case, we rule it as overactive human tradition and contradicting with 1 Cor 7.

If anyone claim that Infant Baptism is the Tradition to accept, we find it unscriptural as one must repent before the Baptism (Acts 2:38)and Philip said the Eunuch that Baptism is possible when one believes with all the heart, he or she may be baptised ( Acts 8:37)

In that aspect, Tradition doesn't have any authority to supersede or rule over Scripture, and the Scripture is the final and sovereign authority

 

No, but Tradition interprets Scripture.

For example, following yours above, you interpret I Tim 3:2 as contradicting clerical celibacy, yet it can be equally interpreted as just prohibiting polygamy ie: not forcing a minister to be married but just demanding he marries no more than one woman. And, following your baptismal example, we can say that the Acts passages referred to by you do not necessarily lay down the order in which the actions must occur (see also Mark 16:16) and we can also refer to the baptism of the Philippian jailer's family in Acts 16 as strongly suggesting infant baptism. Certainly there is no Scripture which forbids infant baptism, in fact Jesus arguably has harsh words for those who would prohibit it in Mark 10, and so the Tradition of infant baptism, which goes back to the earliest history of the Church, does not contradict Scripture

 

That is certainly how the Jews of Christ's day "played the game".

Bravo!

And it is NOT what the saints did in Acts 17:1-11 as they "judged the statements of Paul" by studying scripture "TO SEE IF those things were so"!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I would accept you argument if Tradition contradicts or nullifies the word of God - but where is explains, clarifies and interprets that word, no way!

 

How do you know when it is doing one vs the other?

"More tradition"?

Then what were the Jews of Mark 7 "telling themselves"?

 

And what were the Thessalonian Jews in Acts 17 doing with the sola Scriptura

 

Obviously in Acts 17 they are "judging Paul".

The RCC would claim that the oral teaching and traditions of PAUL are the active living "church tradition" that someone might have in those days.

Clearly the non-Christians of Acts 17:1-11 don't use the circular argument of relying on Paul as the standard of truth to judge Paul and see if he is telling the truth.

That means that by RC standards THEY CAN NOT be using tradition to evaluate scripture and SEE IF the oral tradition of Paul is "true".

I think you are stuck on that one.

AS for my previous question - how do you know when tradition is contradicting God's Word vs simply being correct in explaining what the text actually says?

How are you avoiding the Mark 7 "problem"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2),

and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Traditions were GIVEN - orally and in the written word, and were meant to be passed on.

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

 

But the Jews in all instances had only the OT at the time

 

The two traditions Jesus condemned were the insistence on washing one's hands before eating and tithing to be righteous before helping the needy.

 

Also, again, your gripe is larger than the Roman Catholics. First off, there are other Catholic Rites, and on top of that there are the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well. On 98% of things they are in agreement. Stop grinding your axe against the RCC and realize just who exactly says what.