Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

[WPutnam]

Lisa replied, where I last said (trying to determine the right definition of Sola Scriptura):

...I have to sort of take a guess at it, so I have no idea whose "definition" other then what I have been able to derive by listening across the spectrum of
Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical thinking. And this is the reason, I think, Thessalonian, asked the question in the first place.

And what I've been trying to impress on you is that there is only one correct definition to sola scriptura. And once you figure out what it is, you will have the edge on your debate partner by correcting him.

See, my point is the majority of debates that you feel disprove sola scriptura are debates built upon a "straw man." You are not really arguing against the real term, just your understanding of it.

No, my understanding of it based upon the current definition from the person I am talking with. Here is the problem: Protestants/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals do not have a "church council" so to speak, and authority that speaks with one voice, to determine the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.

And we Catholics certainly do not have a precise definition of it either, simply because it is not our doctrine!

I last said:

Now, I suppose I could search out all of the denomminations of all the non-Catholic churches and congregations and attempt to compile what the definition of Sola Scriptura is. Do you see the obvious futility of doing this, Lisa?

Yes. That's why I've decided that you should search out the one true meaning of the term and then you can quickly dispose of wrong definitions given to you and save yourself a lot of wasted hours.

Nah, been there, done that already, having long concluded that this is impossible. And besides, the very act of challenging any concept of Sola Scriptura goes a long way in showing the very error of this doctrine.

The bottom line is, I don't give a hoot if I ever find a concise explanation of Sola Scriputra that is agreeable by all of the non-Catholic parties simply because any concept of it is easily refutable, plain and simple. Further, I simply don't think a unified definition exists in the non-Catholic part of Christendom.

But prove me wrong, Lisa, if you can...

I previously said (speaking of a similarity with a James White definition):

I just happen to note the link you gave as having the definition of Sola Scriptura that "rang a bell," coming close to what he has said, from the top of my fallible memory.

Did it not perhaps ring a bell indicating that just perhaps you were getting close to defining SS?

No, simply because I found resistance to the James White definition!

I last said:

for White's definition of Sola Scriptura matching Robert Bowman's, I will let you confirm that. I know they sounded similar, and so if it comes close to being a "legitimate and reliable" definition, you may very well be right, but I think I will still find opposition to this among many Protestants I discuss these issues with (it being a while.)

Other protestants disagreeing with the definition would not be evidence that the definition is wrong.

I agree, just like the "appearance" of the early church fathers "disagreeing" with the doctrine proves that it ever existed. We have yet to get fully involved in the writings of the early fathers on this subject...

I previously said:

I think it would also be quite remarkable if the James White definition of Sola Scriptura would match all of non-Catholic Christendom much better then the degree, all these communities regard the other disputed doctrines such as baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and the Trinity and others...

Perhaps not. But, as I've conversed with you, I have thought about this. I'm sure than most non-RCs have gone along with the definition given by their respective churches and haven't sought the true meaning on their own. So, basically, what they are arguing, they may believe. However, the fact is what they believe is different than sola scriptura.

I think that is true, even in these forums to show a modicum of Protestant unity on the issue. But they can't quite do this for the other doctrines that are in dispute which I mentioned above, can they?

I last said:.

As for a priest teaching what you are claiming here, if I were his bishop, he would be hitting the road big time! Unfortunately, such renegades end-up founding their own non-Catholic communities!

Well, this priest was sent packing.

What does he call his new church he founded?

I continued:

That was earlier in my apologetics efforts. And by the way, where do I go to get the correct skinny on the proper definition of Sola Scriptura? The James White site? The
Robert Bowman site? Do you see where I am leading you here?

Well . . . I believe we have to look closer to the Reformation era to find the right definition.

We? Sorry, but I think I will simply say "you," Lisa. You see, having looked before (many years ago) and not finding anything, I think it is incumbent on you or any other Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical person to make the case.

You see, even if you could find a unified definition acceptable to all, it would not prove that the doctrine is correct. Before the so called Protestant Reformation, Sola Scriptura was certainly not a celebrated and defined doctrine. There was hints of it, certainly, seen in the heresies that have come and gone; heresies that rejected the teaching authority and traditions of the Church, favoring only the authority of scriptures alone - after all, for the heresies, scripture was all that was left for them.

I continued:

But when it comes to a Catholic teaching, I have only one place to go... (The Catechism of the Catholic Church being a good start) but note that the source for the correct definition is within one church. Get the idea now?

Yet, there are still people of the RC faith who have different understandings on RC doctrine. See my post from the Layperson.

Lisa, I have been a Catholic since 1953, and converts such as myself take our faith quite seriously to do such a thing, so I do have a pretty good grip on Catholic doctrine. But I will never make the claim that I understand it completely. But if and when I do stumble onto something I do not completely understand, I have the magisterium of the Church to guide me.

When Christ established His church upon the ROCK of Peter, He gave me, personally, and for all the faithful, a big rock upon which we can go to for authority and for the explanation of her doctrines. And even while there is dissension and disagreement within the Catholic Church, it is like comparing an ant hill with Mount Everest when we view the dissension and disunity we all see in Protestantism.

I continued:

And BINGO, you put your finger on exactly why I think Thessalonian posted his thread in the first place! What are we Catholic apologists to do when we discuss Sola Scriptura? We wish we could operate with one definition that is applicable to all

But, that's an unreasonable desire.

Actually, it is what I would call a "crocodile tear" wish!

Why? Speaking for myself, I see the "disadvantage" we have as a stealth advantage - It allows us to point out the weakness in the unity of Protestantism!

I last said:

...but alas, this is not so as we encounter the Baptists, Methodist, Pentecostals and their derivatives , JW's, SdA's, Church of England/Episcopal, Presbyterians and their derivatives, and on and on and on...where do I stop?

You left one out . . . Roman Catholicism.

Er, ah, I prefer the term, "Catholic Church" or simply "Catholicism." "Roman Catholic" is not the complete Church but is a subset of the One Holy Catholic Church, of which the Roman/Latin/Western Rite is but one of several Rites. But never mind, I regress here...

Now, go back and read your statement I responded to (which you did not include in this reply.) I listed the above communities to indicate a disunity in definition of Sola Scriptura.
But you reply thinking I should have included "Catholicism" in that list?

Lisa, Catholicism is not included simply because the Catholic Church does not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura!

I previously said (responding to the proposition that Catholics do not know the scriptures as good as Protestants):

It's just the feeling I get, the conclusive observation I make, noting that for a Catholic to get out here and defend the faith, he had better have his nose into scriptures, the Catechism, the teachings of the early fathers, etc., and usually, most often then not, he is on top of the issues better then his non-Catholic counterpart.

Maybe in regards to knowing the ECFs and the Catechism you are correct. But, my experience with non-RCs is that they know their Scriptures pretty dern good.

And I hope you will soon learn that some of us Catholic know our scriptures "pretty dern good" as well!

But when it comes to Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian doctrines, including Sola Scriptura, we Catholic apologists are at a disadvantage simply because there is too much inconsistencies in their doctrines and beliefs to know them all in our heads.

Well, I don't think it would be too much for you to expect your counterparts to reveal their particular denomination or belief practices so you can argue effectively.

Again, I say this with some "crocodile tears," taking advantage of the disunity of Protestantism to contrast that with the unity in Christ's original Church!

We Catholics stand on the "ROCK" of the Church, speaking in one voice as guided by Holy Church, but the non-Catholic community speaks in a cacophony of many voices, too often in disunity of doctrine and faith.

Do you now get the funny feeling that this is precisely why Thessalonian posted this thread in the first place? To have such a common definition would be a convenience to us, that we don't have to go digging into every denomination and their article of faith!

Well, there is a definite definition for SS, you just need to figure out what it is.

Show it to me, Lisa...

In the meanwhile, I will have the advantage in stealth, to take advantage of a lack of a common definition! The "disadvantage" I originally spoke of is simply as convenience we would have in not having to discern the precise definition of Sola Scriptura from an individual when we debate Sola Scriptura - to have a precise and uniform definition is to simply save time.

But to not have that precise definition is the chink in the armor of Protestantism that we will go for every time. It is our "stealth advantage."

And besides, the individual I am debating often does not even reveal his denomination, and in fact, it is like pulling hen's teeth to get his to state it! So I have to go blindly along, hoping I can dope out what he really believes.

I don't think you would be being unreasonable if you refused to debate with such a person.

Oh, if it goes on for too long, that is what I do. But often, it is I that is left dangling, having made the last post that goes on with a non-response and usually ending the thread.
And of course, if it resorts to ad hominem, I have a simple ending of the thread with a comment like, "Have a nice day <name of person>. And God loves you too." It also helps me in my own "temper control" regimen.

But you guys have it easy! To find out what we believe, you know where to go for a common source, don't you?

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

Lisa,

I cannot post the rest of my message!

It is in five separate messages, but I cannot post the second one as I get the message. "cannot post due to to many images."

I have no idea what is going on!

I will report this problem and hope to get an explanation as to why......

ON EDIT: Since I have your E-mail address, I sent you the whole thing as an attached file!

Happy reading!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

[ February 22, 2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

[thessalonian]

"Of course, everything that was taught was Bible-based, from the Bible."


Do you think so. Everything was explicitly taught in the Bible or is implicit okay. Some tradition, no tradition? So are you saying also that there is nothing really new in the Gospels because for a time quite surely those stories were handed on orally. i.e. everything in the NT is just redundant?

By the way DHK how do you feel about Curtis's hypothesis on the assumption thread that unless the event is explicitly written down in the Bible it didn't really happen. This would mean that noone could believe the events of the life of Christ until they were actually written down. OT evidence could be placed in front of the Jews for instance but they could rightfully ignore them because they had not been inscripturated. Is this a good working theory.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
Lisa,

I cannot post the rest of my message!

It is in five separate messages, but I cannot post the second one as I get the message. "cannot post due to to many images."

I have no idea what is going on!

I will report this problem and hope to get an explanation as to why......

Bill, you may be trying to use too many emiticons. The board limits each page to only 8 images. Stop smiling so much!

Clint

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
Lisa,

I cannot post the rest of my message!

It is in five separate messages, but I cannot post the second one as I get the message. "cannot post due to to many images."

I have no idea what is going on!

I will report this problem and hope to get an explanation as to why......

Bill, you may be trying to use too many emiticons. The board limits each page to only 8 images. Stop smiling so much!

Clint </font>[/QUOTE]Is that what it is? "Smiling" is a good thing, yet I do it too much!???? Wow!

OK, I will see what I can do, but anyway, I gave the whole thing to Lisa via E-mail as an attached file. Unfortunately, that will mean others cannot read it, and I intend that for the "lurkers" to read as well. Oh well...........

And BTW, thanks for the heads-up. That sounds logically illogical, if you know what I mean...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Actually, Bill, for clarification I used the word "page" when I should have used "post." Sorry for any confusion.

After seeing your contributions in here for these months, I assumed it was "smiling" too much.

Could have been getting angry:

or "razzing" to many people:

waving to the crowds:

too much sleep:

or winking too much (Mrs. Putnam probably would NOT like that one!):

Well, you get the idea.

I will bow out of the thread now. Hope this helped.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"Of course, everything that was taught was Bible-based, from the Bible."


Do you think so. Everything was explicitly taught in the Bible or is implicit okay. Some tradition, no tradition? So are you saying also that there is nothing really new in the Gospels because for a time quite surely those stories were handed on orally. i.e. everything in the NT is just redundant?

By the way DHK how do you feel about Curtis's hypothesis on the assumption thread that unless the event is explicitly written down in the Bible it didn't really happen. This would mean that noone could believe the events of the life of Christ until they were actually written down. OT evidence could be placed in front of the Jews for instance but they could rightfully ignore them because they had not been inscripturated. Is this a good working theory.

I cannot comment about what Curtis said, because after reading through the thread I could not find anything that he said that came close to what you were saying. Maybe a quote would be in order.

Was there anything new in the gospels? Of course. The gospels were eyewitness accounts of those things that the Apostles saw and heard of Jesus.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

There was a definite purpose for the Holy Spirit leading the Apostles to write down the events and words that they wrote:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Even if the gospel message was not available New Testament believers through the four Gospels as we know them, that would not prevent them from using Scripture:

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
--Philip preached the gospel out of the book of Acts.

Yes I believe everything that they preached was Bible-based. This is precisely what Acts 17:11 teaches:

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.
--They searched the Scriptures to verify Paul's words. Tradition had nothing to do with it.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic church in one of its more generous moments - speaking of God's infallible - authorotative Word.

Dei Verbum, Article 21. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).

So how is it that this document that is to "REGULATE the preaching of the Church" -
the document that is described as "committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. should be "dissmissed" as sola-scriptura-heresy by our RC so consistently?

Why do you "never" hear this affirmation of the text when they bring this up?

Why do you never SEE them USE the text "to REGULATE the preaching of their Church"?

Why do you not SEE them refer to the Authority and USE of the text AS THE definitive statement on the Apostolic and prophetic teachings being described HERE as "they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles."??

Why the "distance" from scripture that you see here when it comes to discussing "sola scriptura"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Case in point from Thess

Sufficient for what is the questoin. So do you think that when Paul gave the Gospel to Timothy, before he wrote the letters to Timothy that the scriptures were sufficient for everything? If so, then why did he have to write the letter to Timothy? Did Paul think that those scriptures were insufficient? Gasp.

Sufficient "to REGULATE the PREACHING of the Church" as quoted above is "re-worked" by Thess as "Sufficient for WHAT"??

Notice the hollow treatement of the text of 2Tim 3:16-17 byh THESS - where Paul speaks of the OT as "THE SCRIPTUIRES" that were "SUFFICIENT" for salvation.

Thess can only imagine them to be "INSUFFICIENT" and seeks to "PROVE" this point by saying that IF they WERE SUFFICIENT Paul would not be "writing additional information".

His point is to degrade the text as "SUFFICIENT" and to show that in fact it is "INSUFFICIENT" else why is Paul writing more -- so Paul HIMSELF is in error by the reasoning of THESS - consistently arguing that the scriptures are NOT sufficient to "REGULATE the Preaching of the CHURCH".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

OK, I will attempt to post the rest of my message:

(Continued from previous message)

...snip...

On the other hand, you guys can easily discern where Thessalonian and I stand, don't you? Do you now see the disadvantage we have in attempting to relate to ALL of non-Catholic Christianity?

But, it's the RCs who place themselves in this position. If you stopped the argument of RCism vs all Protestantism, many of your major arguments used to disspell non-Catholic teachings would become null and void.

Very interesting, Linda. You see, that is how I usually operate.

Between Protestants, who may be arguing their differences as to the "rapture," for example, and the various types of "millenniumisms," I don't get involved. Arguments concerning the proper method of applying the water in baptism, total immersion vs. pouring on, I usually lay back I watch. It is only when Catholicism is called into the picture, either in a misunderstanding (often out of simple ignorance and innocence) of Catholic doctrine, will I get involved. And the issue of Sola Scriptura is one of those issues that effects Catholicism, thus I respond as I do.

Sure, that's fine. That's cool. But that is about the only thing that was carried-over from the Old Testament. But notice how Christ speaks of the Ten Commandments whereas, the Jews sort of compromised on it in the spirit (the letter being way too strict), especially in their Corban rule.

But for your information, Christ did quote from Jewish traditions, but it is not pertinent to the thread here. One day, we can discuss it further...

Could you just give me one tiny example. Maybe, I'll start another thread.

Gee, I thought you would never ask!

First of all, there might not be enough meat for this to be another thread, as I find only one place where Jesus does this. But since Paul likewise does this, you will find the following link an interesting read:

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/authority/authority_9.htm

From that link, I quote what Jesus said:

Quote........
"But most striking of all (for the Scripture-only advocate) is our Lord himself. For like the apostles, he too, turns out to be perfectly willing to accept Tradition as a vehicle of revelation. For he tells his disciples:"
[blockquote]The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. (Matthew 23:2-3)[/blockquote]
"As with all the other aspects of Tradition cited above, nowhere in the Old Testament do we find reference to "Moses' seat" as the title for the teaching authority in Israel. Like all the other facets of New Testament teaching we have seen above, it too is found only in Tradition! Yet Jesus honors and even exalts such a position of authority and its traditional name, and even binds his followers to honor it. In short, our Lord, too, acts just the way Paul says we should: he condemns only human tradition, but honors authentic divine paradosis whether it comes by word of mouth or by Scripture. It is not the Tradition of God, but the tradition of men, that is condemned."
Unquote........

And here is what Paul said:

Quote..........
"Nor is this New Testament citation of Tradition an isolated incident. Paul, for instance, also writes to Timothy this warning concerning deceivers in the Church:"
[blockquote]Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth-men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone. (2 Timothy 3:8-9)[/blockquote]
"Who are Jannes and Jambres? Well, the Old Testament doesn't mention them, but if you consult a handy Bible reference work, you find they are the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. So... if these gentlemen are not in the Old Testament, how do Paul (and Timothy) know their names? The same way thousands of their contemporaries knew. For, in fact, Paul is again drawing on (and assuming Timothy will draw on) a widely known extrabiblical Tradition, and treating it as authoritative revelation."
Unquote............

But just for good measure, here is another quote:

Quote...........
"Jude does the same thing-twice! First, he speaks of the time the Archangel Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses (v. 8-9). His Old Testament reference? There is none. For it is a Tradition found only in the non-canonical book, the Assumption of Moses. Evidently both Jude and the author of the Assumption of Moses regard this extrabiblical Tradition as important. Then, a few verses later, Jude again draws on extrabiblical Tradition and refers (v. 14-15) to a prophecy of Enoch recorded, not in the Old Testament, but in the book of Enoch, another non-canonical book. The book of Enoch was composed about a century or two before Christ. However, according to Genesis 5:18-24, Enoch himself lived long before Noah. Thus for Jude to quote a prophecy of Enoch's as inspired revelation is Jude's acknowledgment that Tradition-in this case the Tradition of Enoch's prophecy-is revelation."

"Then there is the epistle to the Hebrews. The author writes of the suffering Old Testament prophets:"
[blockquote]Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. (Heb 11:36)[/blockquote]
"Again the advocate of Scripture-only revelation is faced with a problem. For nowhere in the Old Testament is any hero or prophet martyred by being sawed in two. What, then, is the author of Hebrews talking about? He is talking about a Tradition preserved, not in the Old Testament, but in the Ascension of Isaiah 5:1-14, another piece of late Old Testament-era literature which was never canonized. For it was a well-known Tradition that Isaiah met his end this way-a Tradition preserved both by the author of Hebrews and by the the author of the Ascension of Isaiah."
Unquote..............

I previously said:

Not at all! The only thing that was before the Church, that passed on into the new covenant was the Ten Commandments!

I disagree. Was the Church formed before or after the Gospels were delivered? Not necessarily written down, but delivered. Did the Church exist before Jesus' ministry? We know from Matt 16:18 that the Church was not yet formed, because Jesus said, " . . . upon this rock I will build my Church."

Lisa, I think the whole gospel and the Church was "formed" at the same time - Pentecost.

Even while Christ had completed his gospel message to the apostles, infusing them into the hearts and minds of the apostles, it took the holy Spirit at Pentecost to "complete the job" so to speak. The establishment of the "Church" was a part of Jesus' ministry!
It certainly did not exist before Christ, but one could also say it did not, technically, exist immediately after Christ ascended into heaven, but again, at Pentecost. Remember, the establishment of Christ's church, as given in Matthew 16:18, is in future tense. It certainly did not exist immediately after Christ's resurrection , since He had a bit more instruction to do with His own apostles (John 20:22-23 comes to mind here, when He first appeared to the apostles after His resurrection.) We also see the commissioning of Peter in John 21:15-19 in the "feed my lambs...sheep" sequence, which occurred just before His ascension. Therefore, when did the Church "lighted fires under all boilers" (U.S. Navy parlance for preparing to get a steam powered ship underway) in the start of her divine mission? Pentecost, of course....

I previously said:

The only real other reason the Old Testament was valuable was to show the prophesy of the Messiah to come, the foreshadowing of the new covenant to come, and to illustrate the history of the Jews in contrast to how Christians are to act in the gospel of Christ and His commandments. (Not to minimize the Old Testament at all, but it is now a closed covenant.) That is not the gospel of Christ! His gospel is the "Good News" of how we are to be saved, today, by the blood of the cross!

Yes, but you still have not proven that the Church was formed before the Gospel.

Ah, now I see your misunderstanding of what I had said!

The gospel came first, which included the future tense establishment of the Church, which I have just explained above, until the holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. We certainly had the now closed covenant of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament yet!

Altogether now.....The gospel came before the Church (oral only in the hearts and minds of the apostles.)

The Church came before the New Testament, (the gospels now began to be recorded as ink touched papyrus in it's writing.)

The Church husbanded, gathered together, all of the contempory writings of the New Testament era, separating the "wheat from the chaff" as to what was inspired and what was not, and then compiled and canonized them as holy scripture that is divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture!

Oh, the audacity of a Church to do such a thing!

I previously said:

I use the word "gospel" as the Teaching Word or the Good News of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the old covenant of the Old Testament, not for the moment taking away the importance of what the Old Testament teaches us.

I know that. I wasn't trying to assert that the OT's importance was taking away from the NT, just to show that it is evident by the foreshadowing in the OT that the Gospel was planned already.

I get a tingly feeling all over when I run across something I agree with!

Wait a minute now! We both and know that God is omnipotent, who knows all things past, present and future! He also know that the Church would come before anything would be written down!

Bill, that doesn't mean the Church came before the Gospel--just before it was put in writing. The formation of the Church was part of the Gospel, it was part of Christ's ministry.

Your misunderstood me in a perception of what I said already corrected above. The Church came before the New Testament was written, not the gospel, which Christ infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles before the Church was established.

So far as humankind knows, all of the gospel is in the hearts and minds of the apostles. All of this means that for all intents a purposes, in the history and time flow of all humanity during that period, The Church had all of the revealed truth before it was committed to papyrus.

Yes.

Now we are back on track!

The fact that God, from His omnipotent throne knows all of this is not the issue and it certainly is not pertinent to what God actually does, through His Divine Son, in imparting authority to a Church he creates, never mind when it may be written down.

But, it was written down. Why do you suppose that is?

Easy, Lisa. The providence of God that it was so, and the authority of the only "agency" around who could declare such a thing!

So, insofar as the "existence" of the gospel is concerned, it did not exist in the time of the Old Testament!

It may not have been activated, yet. But, I believe it did exist.

Just like you and I and even the Church "existed" in the mind of God from all eternity! But insofar as the time flow of earth and the universe is concerned, it certainly did not exist.

God, in His timeless omniscience knowing of the gospel that was to be later in earth time, is non sequitur for the issue at hand.

No, it's not. God already formulated the Gospel, before the Church was established. The foundation of the Church was part of His plan in the Gospel.

Are you saying that the Church is the one tiny exception that God know of all things that "existed" within His own infinite knowledge and omniscience against the fact that God knew the "existence" of every grain of sand that forms this earth? Or even every atom and molecule that exists in the entire universe?

So now we have a Church who came before the word of the gospel were ever committed to papyrus.

But, not before the Gospel.

Which the Church taught from, orally, from the hearts and minds of the apostles and some of their successors before ink ever touched papyrus in it's writing! It is in this era of time, immediately after Pentecost and even into the close of the apostolic era and somewhat beyond, that we see the appearance of the New Testament scriptures. It was slow, but sure, and yet even up to the 4th century, the oral tradition was mosty the authority that was in operation. Individual churches would be lucky to have even a scrap of the New Testament writings then in progress, let alone the whole thing.

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

All things contemplated by God exist in the timeless realm of God! But earth is not timeless but in time flow, that it has a past, present and future. Therefore in the "present tense" of the Church being established, the gospel was in the process of being infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles.

So, when do you assert that the Church was established?

Pentecost - with the descent of the holy Spirit to complete the job of "jump starting" the new Church into action! Her establishment was given in Matthew 16:18 in future tense. There was much more to do before the Church was to proceed in it's mission, including, of course the death and resurrection of Christ.

It did not exist in the physical form of words on papyrus.

That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Yes, in the hearts and minds of the apostles as Christ had infused it!

And if it did not exist in that physical form, whence comes Sola Scriptura?

It has been preserved for us in writing. That's how the earliest christian leaders ensured that it was passed on accurately to us.

Guess which Christian leaders, Lisa?

Guess which Church they belonged to?
Guess which Church was the only one around that could do such a thing?

Infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles was His Word, given orally, not one command from Jesus to write a thing down! (While he was in the flesh and on earth with the apostles.)

But, they did write it down. Why do you think they did?

The influence of the same holy Spirit that came down upon them at Pentecost!

I had one "KJVonly" type tell me one time that Paul preached the gospel using the Authorized 1611 King James Version!

And you continued to converse with this person?

I could not help not conversing with him - He threw me off of his bulletin board! (Hobby type computers, set-up as servers we could dial into and a 'backbone" such as FidoNet who provided Nation-wide service - all pre-internet stuff.)

But you are missing my point now - With the Church in existence, with the apostles in full force, having the gospel infused in their hearts and minds, where is Sola Scriptura?

Where it's always been.

When I get a short reply, which simply avoids the question, I know you are running out of answers! Sorry, Lisa, but the authority of the Church did not go "poof" and disappear when the scriputres, both Old and New Testament were finally canonized by the Church!
The very fact that Sola Scripture did not and could not exist before this time, how in the world could it exist afterwards?

If I write a book describing electronic circuits, when I publish it, does my "authority" in being the author in what I say in that book disappear? Get the picture? Since the apostles were the authors of the New Testament (God's influence acknowledged, of course) are they not also the "charter clergy" of the very Church Christ established and "jump started" at Pentecost? Therefore, is not the Church the very author of the New testament by extension? Therefore, whence the authority of the Church when we now have the Bible?

If you were a "New Testament" Christian on those times, where would you go for the gospel message as authority for your doctrines, faith and morals?

Wherever the Gospel was being preached--church.

"By Jove, I think she's got it!" (From the Broadway show, "My Fair Lady")

Lisa, the Church was and still is, the authority you went to! And by that same authority, she declared scripture as equal authority along side her own!

Does the church you go to declare the possession of authority? If so, show me her "commissioning papers" please!

Remember, the New Testament was not written yet! (Some scholars think that the period of inscripturisation started about 20 to 30 years after Pentecost.)

But, the Gospel still existed.

Let me ask you. When you were in school, your teacher was in charge of the class. Did that mean she could get up and teach whatever she wanted? She had a source for what she taught--a text book. She was bound to follow what was in that book. Just like the church is bound to follow Scripture and teach what is there.

The problem with your analogy is, the teacher did not write the book!

She does not have the power to edit out, or include in, other chapters and verses since she is not the author. She may indeed, have expertise in what it teaches, and she may even disagree with what the book is teaching, but to go beyond the general knowledge of the subject in the book, she cannot generally go against it.

Even the Church will tell you, she cannot go against the teachings of the very scriptures she has husbanded and preserved for you and I. Being the "Co-author" (so that I may include the influence of God) she still cannot go against what she has already "authored," else, the analysis falls into utter absurdities...

I continued:

So, where is Sola Scriptura now insofar as the gospel of Christ is concerned in that period?

Ingrained in the Gospel. You know I keep hearing, "NT Scripture wasn't written until . . . "However, that does not account for the epistles written by Paul. Maybe you can enlighten me. Did Paul not write those epistles? And there's no way to know for certain that none of these teachings were being cirulated in some type of written form.

I am fully aware of the epistles of Paul. Saying that, please prove from scriptures, and especially Paul, where scriptures proves the existence of Sola Scripture. I know exactly where you are going with some quotes that have been refuted time and time again, but please be my guest.

(Space reserved here for your answer, Lisa!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.which should be about enough space, but feel free to use more.)

I continued:

But what say you after Christ ascended to the Father in heaven yet we still do not have the first scrap of papyrus with words on it. Still no Sola Scriptura yet, right? Where was the authority, Lisa? Will you agree with me that it was in the Church (the core of which were the apostles.........and...........their successors as they died off?

The authority was in the same place it is today, the Gospel as delivered in person by Jesus Christ. It's not the written form that gives the Scriptures their authority. It is the written form which has preserved the Gospel so that it would be passed on to us. No, I don't agree that the authority rested in the Church.

You deny the authority of the Church before there was a written authority in the New Testament? How then can anyone discern an unseen authority, still in oral form and in the hearts and minds of the apostles?

From what you are saying here, I must also ask, why did the faithful put their complete faith in the authority of the apostles? If you say, "they had do, since there was no other authority" (visible, that they could read) then you would be making my point.

The authority of the Church is obvious from the actions of Christ in establishing His church.

The authority of the scriptures, especially the New Testament, is by fiat - What the Church declared as authority!

And no other Church can do that, Lisa! None whatsoever, ever!

Now, we believe St. John, the author of the Book of Revelations, was the last apostle alive. Therefore, we think this book was the last one written. Where was "authority" at this time, Lisa?

In the teachings delivered by Christ or in St. John's case in Revelation, as revealed by God.

Some of the local churches rejected Revelations as divinely inspired, I understand, Lisa. In fact, there were a lot of material the Church had to work with, including the following that was not included:

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

By what authority did the Church reject these contempory writings as being inspired?

Think real hard because at this time, the New Testament, while individual books were probably written, were not readily available to all - Local churches were probably lucky to have a copy of even one gospel or an epistle or two. Where then, is Sola Scriptura, Lisa?

If you read the New Testament you'll see it everywhere.

You are slowing down on me, Lisa. Please show me "everywhere" in the New Testament where Sola Scriptura is taught? But be advised I have been there, done that already!

Shall I leave you more space here so that you can include that treatise for me?

Most lay Christians had never seen a papyrus scroll, let alone, could even read it!

And there are people today who can't read and therefore only hear the Gospel.

Indeed, but you deflect my point, Lisa. There was a time when very few could read and right, the skill possessed only by the clergy of the early church. Therefore, how is it that Sola Scriptura could even exist in such an environment?

You see, about 95% of the population were illiterate. Where, then, did they go for their authority in confirmation of their faith, doctrine and morals, Lisa?

To where the Gospel was being preached.

And preached orally too! And as the scriptures became available, it was then read from the pulpit of the Church! This is exactly what you find today at every Catholic Mass throughout the world, even as the faithful in attendance has a missal in their hands that they can read along with the priest or deacon reading the gospel. And who declares that the very scripture they read is divinely inspired, Lisa? That very priest or deacon, from the pulpit, declaring it so, standing on the very authority of the Church who declared it!

In fact, it was not until about 400 years after Pentecost that the New Testament was ever brought together into one single binding!

Yes.

You keep this up, you will be eating out of my hands, Lisa!

Did Sola Scriptura suddenly rear it's head, and the only authority around at the time, that very same authority that brought forth the New Testament in the first place, now displaced by the very document they brought forth?

It's not the Scriptures which possess authority. It's the teachings contained therein that hold the authority.

Hummmm, a bit technical, but your statement changes nothing to answer my question here, Lisa. Did the Church possess authority or not, Lisa? If yes, where did it go after the New Testament was finally compiled and canonized for the first time? If no, then where did the early Christians go for their authority? If you say the oral gospel, how did they know? Who told them? How do you know who told them had the authority to do so?

What God knows in His infinite knowledge of all things remain "non-existent" to the earthly time flow until God brings it forth in the infusion in the hearts and minds of the apostles!

That still does not disprove the fact the Gospel was formed before the Church.

Remember, I never said that the Church came before the gospel; only that it came before the New Testament was written! Remember?

Yet, before the New Testament was written, such doctrines were a part of the grand Sacred Tradition in the form of the total gospel of Christ, in the hearts and minds of the apostles!

There is not evidence of that. If so, can you please show me.

Logic tell you this, Lisa. At Pentecost, were was the New Testament? (We both agree that the gospel of Christ was instilled in the hearts and minds of the apostles, right?) Therefore, all of the gospel was in the Sacred Tradition of the early church! What Christ taught them is the Sacred Tradition! At Pentecost, it was all they had to go on, not that it was insufficient, of course. And I will gladly agree that it was the providence of God that the apostles were inspired to write what is now the New Testament!

And we have evidence of these doctrines, in the providence of God that they would indeed, be presented in the Written Word! (We can discuss John 6 sometimes concerning the "real presence" in the Eucharist! )

You're going to have to show me this evidence.

Logic again. What is the earliest any part of the New Testament was ever written? On the day before this happened, did the Church exist?

Matthew 16:18-19 shows Christ establishing His church, based upon Peter who is given the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority ("keys" being the metaphor for authority, as we see in Isaiah 22:22) and on top of that, the power to "bind and loose,"

Once again, I beg to differ. What we have in this passage is Jesus saying He will found His church . . . And I have to remind you that all twelve of the apostles, including Judas, were given the power to loose and bind. And as far as being given keys to the Kingdom, I don't see it as the same level of power/authority that you do. If I give someone the keys to my house, he will still operate according to the rules I lay down.

Your house, I presume, is a bit smaller then The House of David, right, Lisa? And to be a steward in that house was quite a responsibility, do you agree? And to give Eliakin the "keys" of this palace is certainly a gesture of authority vested upon him, do you not also agree? Yet it is true that Eliakin had to "operate according to the rules" King David laid down, just like Peter, given the authority as the keys metaphor gives, must "operate according to the rules" that who lays down? I suggest Jesus Christ, the founder of His Church!

...all there in the Church before this was written down!

Just because it wasn't written does not negate it's existance.

Oh yes, I remember, in the mind of God! But it was only in the mind of God before it was promulgated by His Divine Son to the apostles, the first time mankind really hears it, and then, later on, like after Pentecost maybe, it was finally written down, some of it, at least...

(Continued in next message

 

[WPutnam]

Continued from previous message)

Okay, Bill, I think this is it . . . whew!

Wait until you see the length of this baby! Whew!

One time, in the good ole' days of Fidonet, I produced a message that took 30 separate uploadings to complete!

...(abridged)..... what other "authority" was there at the time who could do this, with physical hands, minds and a consensus of human individuals to had to audacity to claim such authority?

Authority rests with God. The people who wrote, taught, combined Scripture were merely vessels God used to deliver His message to us, just as Scriptures are merely the mode He chose to ensure their preservation.

Can't answer the question, can you, Lisa? You say God has all the authority, implying that no authority was given to a human institution, established by Jesus. So I must ask, did Jesus give authority to His Church or not? If not, give me your complete and comprehensive analysis/exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 that says otherwise. Also, try this also on John 20:22-23 which is another of my favorite quotes...
You said this already in so many words, but I am going to give you my rendition of what I think many Fundamentalist think about the Bible: (With tongue in cheek...)

God wrote the Bible on beaten sheets of gold (the authorized 1611 Kings James version at that!), bound in the finest of Corinthian leathers, borne on the gossamer wings of cherubim, and come down gently to earth and into the hands of the early Christians!

I never implied any such thing. And you are wrong in stating that many Fundementalists believe this way.

Lisa, without it before me, look at my last reply and see if I really think you believed this, please!

I know you don't believe that! But you would be surprised how well that statement summarizes the thinking process of some of my old past friends - including the one who thought Paul preached from the King James version!

You're alright, Lisa!

Glad you think so!

I said this because I see a Christian goodness in you that I want to acknowledge. And there are more of you as well. All of you guys, I believe, are my Christian brothers and sisters is Christ!

... Jesus is the ultimate source of all authority given to the Church! But He did give authority to the Church! Check out once again, Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18, John 20:22-23; the commissioning of Peter in John 21:15ff; and of course, Matthew 28:19-20.

I'm sorry I don't interpret those verses as giving Peter or the Church the authority claimed by the RCC.

"Royal Crown Cola"? Good drink, so long as it is diet!

Sorry, had to do it!

Lisa, only the holy Spirit can convince you when I can go no further. I am not glib of tongue enough to convince you, and I certainly don't expect you to spin on a dine and agree with me in these things. All I can ask is for you to pray about it as you read those scripture passages once again.

Christ is always the head, from his holy throne in heaven! But the Church on earth has authority, authority and more authority as Christ gave to her.

No, what you could say is that Christ bestowed the responsibity of spreading and teaching the Gospel upon the Church. But, He did not give the RCC the authority to define His word.

Is the giving of responsibility also the giving of authority?

If, as a Naval officer, I encumber a person to do my will in a command I may give him, must he not also have the authority to carry out what it takes to complete the assignment?

Shall we tear out Matthew 16:18-19, the very charter text" of Holy Church? Shall we forget about John 20:22-23 where He gave the awesome power to forgive or retain the sins of men?

Once again, I do not believe that those verses imply what you believe. There is a thread here on forgiving sins. Check it out, Briguy gives an excellent explanation of John 20:22-23.

Who is "Briguy"? Without looking, it bet it goes along the same lines as one Matthew Henry in his famous commentary on John 20:22-23! One of these days, I will give you my "cause" and "effect" analysis of this passage, which applies as well to the "binding and loosing" statements we see in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included what was inspired (and I wonder how they did this?) and made it available, starting from the determination of several church councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized finally at the Council of Trent. And having done this, this very same Church declared this New Testament as part of the written Word of God, including it with the Old Testament (which they also "canonized," I must add) and declared it as written authority that would stand with the very oral/traditional authority she already enjoyed!

Here's an analogy for you, say a person is a writer and dies, leaving masses of unpublished poems, short stories, etc . . . Then, some of his contemporaries and peers decide that an anthology of his unpublished writings should be published. So, they sort through the massive amounts of writings left by him. These people being very well versed on his style, etc . . . are able to tell that some of the texts are not actually written by him, so they discard these writings. Anyhow, they also find that some of his work is so similar that it is only necessary to publish one or two say of a particular type of poem that will represent this type of text. This helps in regards to space and number of pages. Do you see where I'm going with this? Although, fans of this writer are grateful to these people, who so diligently aspired to do justice to the author, they are not responsible for the authors work, they do not exercise authority over his work, etc . . . .

Not a bad analogy, Lisa, but there is one thing the analogy does not cover (as analogies are often dangerous to use, having done them myself) is the authority to declare them as divinely inspired. The most your example of experts can do is give their opinion that they are the authentic works of the author I question. Holy Church goes just a bit beyond that, Lisa...

Yes, we have strayed a bit here, haven't we?

But you see, this is important when we discuss Sola Scriptura! How can this be a valid doctrine if the Church came before the New Testament?

But, the church didn't come before the New Testament.

Please make up your mind, Lisa.

Did the gospel message come before the Church - YES!

Did the New Testament come before the Church - NO!

Did the New Testament come after the Church came to be at Pentecost? - ABSOLUTELY!

How can this be? If the New Testament "existed" in the mind of God from all eternity, did not also holy Church?

The church was part of the plan of the New Covenant. It was not established before Jesus' ministry or even before the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

This does not answer my question, but I do agree with your statement as it stands. The "New Covenant" is essentially the same as the gospel given by Christ to His apostles.
What came later, sometimes after Pentecost, was it inscription onto papyrus, later to be included in what is now the New Testament, all done by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Was not the very Church He established also in the mind of God, Lisa? Why is it that you so quickly think that the New Testament is somehow mystically all present, when all things, in God's mind, are all present, including the Church?

I've already said that the church was already formulated--as part of the New Covenant plan.

Whew! I'm sure glad we got that settled!

(Cntinued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

Lisa, the very fact that the Church had the authority to canonize the scriptures is all important! You see, if the Church had no authority to do this, whence the authority of the very bible you hold in your hands?

Okay, the Church held a council (or councils) to determine what texts belong or didn't. The church took it upon itself to say the canon was closed. They did this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not of their own accord or based upon any type of authority.

Lisa, look closely into my eyes as I slooooooowly explain something to you:

The very fact that the holy Spirit guided the Church into doing something infallibly is your personal admission, here for all of us to read, that the Church is Indefectable. The holy Spirit protects this august body from human error, even through the minds and voices of fallible human beings in the clergy who attended those church councils to determine the very canon of scripture!

Bless your heart, Lisa!

Sola Scriptura implies that we no longer need the teaching authority of the church as scripture now supersedes it! See my problem here?

No, I don't see your dilemma. Scripture does not supersede the authority of the Gospel. It is the Gospel of which the church is supposed to follow. As the pillar and foundation of the Gospel, the church is suppose to preserve, uphold and adhere to the Gospel. The church operates according to the Gospel, which just happens to be contained in Scripture. It's only a problem for people who insist that the church possesses this infallible authority.

I did not say "gospel," Lisa, I said CHURCH! From the git go, Christ made the Church to be the very "tabernacle" of the gospel, the "New Ark of the Covnant" if you will, through His apostles and their successors, the central core of authority of His very own Church.

Look for that Church today, Lisa, and tell me the name of it...................

If the Church has teaching authority, how can scripture by Sola (the sole source) of doctrine, faith and morals?

Like I said, all teachers have a text book they must follow when they are teaching.

Just like Peter, who must follow Christ in what he is teaching! And if the Church could do this from the oral authority (The Sacred Tradition) before the New Testament was written, surely Holy Church can do so still, yet in the enjoyment of the parallel of authority, scripture certainly brings. The Church does not deny the authority of scriptures, after all, she declared it so!

And again, I tread on a probable misunderstanding what Sola Scriptura is in your mind, let alone in the rest of Protestantism! But if the Church continues to have authority after the Bible is complete, why the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

This is only a dilemma for you, who insists the Church has this authority. For those of us who do not place the type of authority in the Church that you do, it's not a problem.

Which has us returning to square one. No where does scripture even hint at the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, yet it is your only crumbling stand Protestantism can make, they rejecting the original authority that established the authority of scripture in the first place!

Whew! My head is spinning, trying to comprehend this convoluted doctrine in the first place!

...some snipping here...

I have been doing this for many years now, Lisa. I am a convert who came into Holy Mother Church in 1953! I bet I am old enough to be your daddy!

You're that old . . . .

I invite you to investigate my web site:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/index.htm

I consider you my sister (daughter?) in Christ Jesus.

Bless you, Pop!

Please pray for me, a sinner, as I fall far short of the Glory of God......

You are most definitely in my prayers as I know you are praying for me.

Thank you, Lisa.

And when my time comes, which I am sure it will be before your time, I will leave a good word for you to St. Peter tending the golden gates of heaven! I'll tell him, "look out for my good friend, Lisa." Or, from the old Protestant hymn my mother used to sing, I will meet you "on that golden shore."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+++

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[LisaMC]

Bill,

I just have time for a quick reply. It may take me a day or two to cover the majority of your response. But, for now . . . .

I said: See, my point is the majority of debates that you feel disprove sola scriptura are debates built upon a "straw man." You are not really arguing against the real term, just your understanding of it.

You responded:

No, my understanding of it based upon the current definition from the person I am talking with.

Bill, you are wrong. There is but one official, correct definition to sola scriptura, to accept that for you is to realize that all your attempts to disprove it were/are futile. To get the correct term, you have to look at when, where and by whom the term was coined. Just because you have many different people giving you different definitions does not mean that there are more than one meaning for the term.

Here is the problem: Protestants/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals do not have a "church council" so to speak, and authority that speaks with one voice, to determine the correct definition of Sola Scriptura.

Every denomination has a statement of basic beliefs or tenets. Yes, those protestants do have a defining source to look to. Do they? I don't know. Each member within a paticular denomination, does hold the the same understanding adhered to by that church. Or at least they should, because by becoming a member of a church, a person agrees to uphold the beliefs of that church. Do all protestant denominations agree with each other upon the definition of the term? Apparently not. That does not disspell the fact there is but one correct definition for the term.

My point is, you must quit comparing all of Catholicism with all of Protestantism. You should be comparing Catholicism with individual denominations. You insisting on lumping all non-RC denominations into one group and comparing them to RCism, is the same as if I isisted on lumping RCism with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

And we Catholics certainly do not have a precise definition of it either, simply because it is not our doctrine!

That does not mean you as a Catholic can not know the correct definition. And until you do find the correct understanding, all of your arguments against the doctrine are for naught.

I said:
Yes. That's why I've decided that you should search out the one true meaning of the term and then you can quickly dispose of wrong definitions given to you and save yourself a lot of wasted hours.

Nah, been there, done that already, having long concluded that this is impossible.

Why the resistance? It is not impossible to find the correct definition. It is impossible to get all to agree on the definition, but that doesn't mean there's more than one.

And besides, the very act of challenging any concept of Sola Scriptura goes a long way in showing the very error of this doctrine.

Perhaps, if you get a grip on the correct meaning, you will realize that the doctrine is not in error.

The bottom line is, I don't give a hoot if I ever find a concise explanation of Sola Scriputra that is agreeable by all of the non-Catholic parties simply because any concept of it is easily refutable, plain and simple.

Only refutable because you are arguing against a "straw man" term.

Further, I simply don't think a unified definition exists in the non-Catholic part of Christendom.

Unified or not is irrelevant. There is but one meaning.

But prove me wrong, Lisa, if you can...

Can't prove there's a unified understanding, and that's not been my claim or intent.

I previously said (speaking of a similarity with a James White definition):

I just happen to note the link you gave as having the definition of Sola Scriptura that "rang a bell," coming close to what he has said, from the top of my fallible memory.

I meant to ask before and didn't. But, first you said the explanation was exact then you switched to the above statement, " . . . rang a bell . . ." and now, " . . . coming close . . ." Which is it, Bill?

No, simply because I found resistance to the James White definition!

Doesn't mean it's wrong.

I said: Other protestants disagreeing with the definition would not be evidence that the definition is wrong.

I agree, just like the "appearance" of the early church fathers "disagreeing" with the doctrine proves that it ever existed. We have yet to get fully involved in the writings of the early fathers on this subject...

You've confused me here . . . What do you mean by, "just like the "appearance" of the early church fathers "disagreeing" with the doctrine proves that it ever existed." The appearance of the Church fathers disagreeing with sola scriptura?

I said:
Perhaps not. But, as I've conversed with you, I have thought about this. I'm sure than most non-RCs have gone along with the definition given by their respective churches and haven't sought the true meaning on their own. So, basically, what they are arguing, they may believe. However, the fact is what they believe is different than sola scriptura.

I think that is true, even in these forums to show a modicum of Protestant unity on the issue.

Is this a complete statement, because I'm not understanding it.

But they can't quite do this for the other doctrines that are in dispute which I mentioned above, can they?

How far above? Which other doctrines?

Anyhoo, I'll be working on replying to the rest!!

TTFN!!!!!!!!!

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
There is but one official, correct definition to sola scriptura, to accept that for you is to realize that all your attempts to disprove it were/are futile. To get the correct term, you have to look at when, where and by whom the term was coined. Just because you have many different people giving you different definitions does not mean that there are more than one meaning for the term.

Lisa, I have read through this thread, and your explanation evades me.

What is your basis for saying that your understanding of the meaning of "sola scriptura" is the "offical correct definition"?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

To WPutnam;

I don't have much time, so please bear with me.

I agree that only those who endure to the end will inherit the Kingdom. Only those who overcome the world. But we believe it's been done. Past tense.

1John 5:4&5

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Without verses like that, it would be easy to translate the verses you posted as "works-based" salvation. But that verse I posted denies it. We cannot overcome the world on our own, Christ did it for us. (John 16:33)

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

You said:

Lisa, I have read through this thread, and your explanation evades me.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that the statement of mine that you quoted is unclear to you? Or do you mean you read over the entire thread and did not find where I stated my understanding of what sola scriptura is? If so, I refer you to the first page, ninth post: Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the only, known, infallible source provided to us by God. It is final in the sense that if a teaching contradicts what is taught in Scripture, then the teaching is wrong. It's really not that hard to understand, you know.

What is your basis for saying that your understanding of the meaning of "sola scriptura" is the "offical correct definition"?

I never said that my understanding is the one correct definition. I have refrained from restating my position in an effort to avoid reverting back into the argument of how disunified Protestantism is. Just as I'm sure you'll admit that you personally do not understand 100% correctly each and every teaching of the RCC, I openly admit that I may have more to learn in regards to sola scriptura. That's why I continue studying. So far, I've found not reason to think my understanding is wrong.

Also, did you read this:

A Refutation of SOLO Scriptura

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

 

[trying2understand]

Got it, Lisa.

There is only one offical correct definition of sola scriptura.

You are just not sure of what it is.

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Like I always suspected, you care nothing of understanding, only attempting to mock others. That's not what I said T2U, however, I do continually remind myself that the reason many people turn to RCism, is because they lack the possession of "personal discernment" and lack the faith necessary to obtain clarification and understanding of the Holy Spirit.

I have come here in an earnest attempt to answer the question of sola scriptura for those of you who do not grasp it, and your christian response is mockery and scorn. God Bless you, brother.

Who is it you are attempting to edify with your sarcasm and scorn? God? the RCC? Self? Who? Who do you think is impressed with your dazzling wit?