Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

[Bible-belted]

Frank,

It is a dumb argument.

The word "papacy" is not in the Bible. Neither is transsubstantiation. Or Co-Redemptrix.

 

[Frank]

Bible-Belted:
The argument is a valid argument. Furthermore, I am not suggesting the concept it is not in the scriptures. However, the understanding of the term was provided by a source outside the inspired text. Therefore, to use a term a non-biblical term and use a secular source as the AUTHORITY is a waste of time.It is simply stating a man's opinion. it is foolish to argue objective truth with the subjectivity of a man as an authority.Of course, denominationalist do it every day. So, to them it is a normal course of study for them. Now, if it is a biblical term from the original language one can search a greek lexicon to find the english translation, if he does not speak the origianl language of the Bible.( New Testament).Or, he can study all related pasages of the term and find it's meaning from context of use.
Jesus said he had all authority. Exousia for the greek speaking crowd. Mat. 28:18. It is his word that completes and makes us perfect for every good work or all sufficient in the english translation. II Tim. 3:16,17. This was and is my argument. It was not and cannot be refuted. However, I can say so and so said Sola scriptura means this or that and be justified because it is a man's opinion of a non-bilical term. Surely, you can see the inherant danger in this type exegesis of scripture. Of course, as I said before, if you are a denominationalist,it is SOP for you!
The question was referenced by a non-bibical term OUTSIDE THE INSPIRED LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT. Therefore, the defintion posted was from outside of the inspired text. The same could be said for dispensationalism. The term is not found in the Bible.
Furthermore, I speak english, not greek. I use an english bible to understand BIBLICAL TERMS. I am sure the person that speaks greek uses a greek version. The line of thinking that trinity is not in the Bible and therefore justifies the use of Sola Scriptura escapes me! I guess using one non-biblical term justiifes using the other. That is a new one on me!!! Furthermore, Godhead does refer to the deity of God. The term declares such. It also refers to the nature of God consisting of God the Father, God the Son, And God the Holy Spirit. Mat. 28:19. That was my point. I use Bible names for Bible things.
Unfortunately, denominationalist do not. This is one reason they cannot decide on what various terms mean. They use a SUBJECTIVE SOURCE.
Sola Scriptura is a term from man. The attempt to define it came form outside the inspired text. READ THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD!!! Dispensationalism is a term from man. However, Godhead the term and concept are from God. Col. 2:9. I can read and understand the term as God would have me to by my study of his word. I do not need a secular book to know the origin or meaning of the term. With the others, sir you do!
If you disagree, please show me in the Bible the term Sola Scriptura. From the Bible, show me premilennial dispensationalism, historic dispensationalism, or trinity. The original greek would do just fine. I have a Strong's I will look them up. However, I will not hold my breath until you find them because you can search today, tomorrow and a thousand years and you willl NEVER find those things in the Bible,not one of them.
Furthermore, I do not use papcy, coredemptrix in teaching the truth. These concepts and terms are foreign to the inspired text. I do not know who you are arguing that point with. I do not ascribe to Roman Catholicim or any other ist or ism. These are man made concepts. Therefore, I do not teach them either.

 

[Bible-belted]

It is a dumb argument Frank.

That you use an english dictionary to learn about the meaning of texts written originally in greek is telling indeed.

The dictionary will only help you so much. And oh my, isn't that a text outside the inspired text?

Ridiculous argumentation.

And break up your posts with paragraphs please.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
I ran accross something rather interesting today. Earlier I defined sola scriptura in this manner, expecting it to cause a bit of a stir because from my understanding this definition would be more on the Lutheran end of the spectrum.

Thessalonian says:
"Sola Scriptura says that the Bible, the written word of God is the final authority in religious matters."

Now Lisa respoinded to my post and hit me right between the eyes with:

"Really? Sola equals final?"

Then she says:

"This is rich you scorn a non-RC who dares to enlighten you on the facts, yet you consider yourself qualified to define our beliefs for us."

(interestingly enough I noticed DHK (a Protestant) used the same definition.

As in, you stupid Catholic, you don't even know what Sola Scriptura means.

Then Helen comes along:

"Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the FINAL authority, not the only authority, first of all. In other words, if there is a disagreement between what the Bible says and what any other authority says, the Bible wins. It is the final authority."

Note the caps on that word FINAL. She's pretty sure about this.

Interestingly enough Curtis has been using a working definition that if it isn't in scripture then you can't believe it. This may be on the spectrum of Lisa's definition but I am not sure. But it does not allow for items that are not in scripture but are not contrary to scripture. So the question is what is the offical infallible definition of Sola Scriptura? You should at least be able to all agree on that I would hope.

I will just sit back and let you Protestants work this out.

Blessings.

Thessalonian,

Notice how quickly your thread has deteriorated to the point that your question was never really addressed!

In about 20 years of Catholic apologetics, I have yet to see a total and complete consensus of exactly what Sola Scriptura really means and do you know why? It is the very nature of the fruit of this insidious doctrine that a concise definition of this doctrine cannot be made!

The Church existed before the New Testament was written.

Therefore that very same Church, with the awesome authority of Matthew 16:18-19, made the determination of exactly what the New Testament consisted of in several councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized, finally by the Council of Trent.

But the Fundamentalist/Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura would have you believe that such authority of the Church who did this very defining of scripture went "poof" and disappeared when the canon of scripture was finalized!

"I sat upon a limb of a great big tree (Holy Church) and sawed it off, with me sitting on it."

Take it from there................

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

[Frank]

Bible:
Your rebuttal is without objective substance. Therefore, Go in peace! And, when you find those terms in the Bible, let me know! I can't wait to see them. This would refute the argument.
It is easy to pass personal subjective judgement or dismiss and arguement because we do not like it. It is quite another to use objective standards to do so. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. I Thes. 5:21. Again, I am not holding my breath until you do so!

 

[LisaMC]

WPutnam,

You said:

Thessalonian,

Notice how quickly your thread has deteriorated to the point that your question was never really addressed!

Let me show you how it was addressed on the first page of this thread:

A.Defining Sola Scriptura
1. A definition: Scripture, which is by definition the only written Word of God, is the only publicly accessible, visible infallible verbal expression of God’s truth in the world; only those truths about God and our saving relationship with him, which are clearly taught in Scripture or shown to follow from the teaching of Scripture, may be required of Christians to believe.
Check out this link. It goes into depth as to what SS is and isn't:

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/index2.html

The above link goes into depth as to what SS is and isn't.

I have yet to see a total and complete consensus of exactly what Sola Scriptura really means and do you know why? It is the very nature of the fruit of this insidious doctrine that a concise definition of this doctrine cannot be made!

And I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten us to the inspired revelations not given in Scripture. What exactly are the (T)raditions that hold equal authority to Scripture?

The Church existed before the New Testament was written.

So. What does this prove? Scripture had already been established as God's way of revealing His commandments to us.

Therefore that very same Church, with the awesome authority of Matthew 16:18-19, made the determination of exactly what the New Testament consisted of in several councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized, finally by the Council of Trent.

That is such a joke, and I'm afraid God's probably not laughing.

But the Fundamentalist/Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura would have you believe that such authority of the Church who did this very defining of scripture went "poof" and disappeared when the canon of scripture was finalized!

No. The source of that Authority didn't go *poof*. He (Jesus) ascended to Heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to preside on His church.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Ah, when Lisa's beliefs get questioned she cries foul. Sniff sniff, you just don't care.

Not crying foul, Thess. To quote you, I believe in calling a spade a spade. Just letting you know you fool nobody.

Well if you mean demeaning and mocking others and being condescending and displaying exemplary biggotry, you certainl wouldy know about that Lisa dear.

I sure do!! I've dealt with many, many such RCs over the last two years. It's a good thing I've ran into just as many, if not more, RCs who are gracious examples of what christians should be. Therefore, I refuse to lable all RCs based upon my insights on you and others like you.

You wrote the book.

I haven't wrote the book--yet. But, I've got enough information on the workings of guys like you to at least start a book. Hmmmmmmm? Thanks for the idea . . .

But what's the point.

What is your point?

As for not really caring what sola scriptura is, you wrote the book also on totally ignoring what Catholics say the teaching of their Church is and throwing the same worn out lines at them.

Well, I'd like to know who's drawing the royalties on all of these so-called books I've written. BTW, can you tell me what childhood experience I endured that set me off on this so-called vendetta I'm on?

As far as understanding Sola Scriptura I do.

Saying it, don't make it so. It's clear to anybody who does have a grasp on it that you don't.

You see it is easy believism Protestantism at it's finiest and it is a lie, causing cancerous division of Christianity for now going on 600 years.

Another thing history clearly reveals is that SS is not what instilled christians with the courage to step out from under the tyrany of the RCC.

It is a festering cancerous sore. Satan's divide and conqure strategy. But we know God wins in the end.

You are such a loving christian . . . So, you call your separated brethren "cancerous sores?"

Lisa once again implies that Thessalonian, that dastartly Catholic

I have to say, you're not a winning example to the RC faith.

is trying to hide something.

Not, hiding. Just dodging, avoiding.

He just can't be trusted.

No. He's just suffering from those damnable "delusions of grandeur." If you can't handle the truth when it slaps you between the eyes, you squeeze 'em shut tight, slap your hands over your ears, and yell, "WALL!!!!!!!!"

I quoted your comment and mine Lisa if you read the top of the thread. What's your point lisa.

You should read my posts, then you would know. Can you not carry on a simple conversation without the Pope and Magisterium interpreting for you?

I didn't say you didn't give me a definition of Sola Scirptura. I am just asking that those on this board reconcile there differences about it, which you all are claiming there are none.

I don't have to ask if you read my post where I showed you that those supposed differences were yet another delusion you have added to your many, many, many . . .

If that is the case then the definition of SS is the only thing you Prots agree on. This thread is not about you per sey but about a conflict in definitions between what you and Helen and Curtis say. Your not dealing with the issue.

Once again, I have shown you how there is no conflict. And for anyone who can and does read on this web site, I did deal with the issue . . . feigning ignorance fools nobody but yourself.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Thessalonian:
Therefore that very same Church, with the awesome authority of Matthew 16:18-19, made the determination of exactly what the New Testament consisted of in several councils in the latter part of the 4th century, formalized, finally by the Council of Trent.

Orignally posted by LisaMC:
That is such a joke, and I'm afraid God's probably not laughing.

Lisa, I sure that you would agree that the Holy Spirit works through men, and that the Holy Spirit used men to recognize what which writings were/were not inspired and therefore which writings were/were not Scripture.

Could you tell me:

how you think this was done,

which men the Holy Spirit used to do that,

when it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit through men,

what is your historical evidence to support your understanding of that working of the Spirit?

I really am interested in what you have to say.

Ron

 

[thessalonian]

Lisa,

You have been remembered in prayer the last couple days.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Thanks for the prayers! You have been remembered also.

I never leave out my floundering brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Ah yes, the Catholic ignores the really tough posts.

Uhhuh.

Lisa I have 7 kids. If you think I am going to respond to every comment you make your dreaming.

Well, if you are so strapped for time, how 'bout you resolve current issues before starting new threads. Just a thought, you might want to consider.

I just don't have the time for all of your pontifications. Sorry if that offends. I wasn't looking for a definition of Sola Scriptura in that thread and explictly stated that that was not what the thread was about.

I answered your question, you could have at least acknowledged that.

I know what it means.

No, you don't.

As you so aptly stated it is a simple concept.

Yet, impossible for you to grasp. Gee . . . Thess, says a lot for your intelligence level.

Easy believism at it's best.

Who said it had to be hard? Um . . . that would be the RCC, who in addition to the Bible, has the Catechism ranging in the 1000s in pages, the Code of Canon Law, etc . . . .

And this thread is about you people hammering out the definition of your doctrine so I can know which of the several definitions is the correct one.

Didn't you just say that you DO know what SS is? Yes, you diiiidddddddd.

Your post once again does not deal with the intention of the thread but satisfies your insatiable appetite for deaming and belittling Catholics.

Not all catholics, only you and others like you.

You care little about truth as exemplified by your not willing to deal with a Protestant who defines Sola Scriptura in a manner contradictory to yours.

How have I refused to deal? Please explain.

No kidding. I dont see the point of this. Are all thoughts and verbal statements written down?

Well can you give me an example of one of God's thoughts or commandments that are not written down? Convince me.

Don't some statements assume a certain amount of knowledge. My wife says go to the store and get some milk. Why would she have to write down, go up x avenue, down x street, after you have put the key in the car and started the engine...

I agree, and those would be the minor details that God left out for the sake of space.

I could write a book on the trip to the store.

You're not helping your case.

Further, it is very apparent from the differences in denominations that teach Sola Scirptura, using the exact same scriptures, that there is a teaching that goes with the scriptures.

You're an expert on what other denominations believe in regards to SS? HA!! You're not even an expert on your own faith.

This is expressed many times in scripture itself but most importantly in Psalm 78, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 John 1:10, Titus 1:9, etc. etc. This teaching is passed on Orally.

During biblical and apostolic times, teachings were mostly spread orally, due to lack of writing materials, literacy, etc . . . However, that doesn't mean that what was written was different than what was spoken. There still had to be a source for the Gospel that was being taught? What was it and how do you confirm it?

 

[LisaMC]

The implications of what you people say is that we Catholics agree that there are things in our religion that contradict the Bible.

There are.

I have not found one yet.

You're not looking.

Once again read the end of John.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

You know the argument you make about the verses which forbid adding to the word? The one in revelations was supposedly only speaking on that particular book. The author of John was speaking for himself. There are four (4) Gospels that are almost identical. Why would the Holy Spirit have been so seemingly repetitive if there were other commandments or teachings that were imparative for us to know, when space was such an issue?

Imagine the experience gained by the Apostles from all that they saw. They wrote some things down so that we might believe. But the understanding that they had gained could not all be written down, though all of it I will say was at least implicit in scripture.

Who says that? Scripture says different, explicitly.

So then you would say that those things trasmitted orally, ala tradition were authorative at that time and they were not operating 100% under sola scriptura?

Yes.

Well, obviously there were things that were not written down.

Such as?????????

If you read what Paul wrote it can be done in a couple of hours. Paul walked this earth as a Christian for perhaps 20-30 years. I am sure he had much to say that was not explicitly written down, though not contradictory to scripture.

So, what are they? Name some.

At the end of John's Gospel, we are told that the things that were said and done by Jesus would have filled the world with all the books.

Look at the first verse in Acts:

Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

How was Jesus identity verified? How was He recognized and found to be the Messiah?

Imagine what the APostles learned with all of this. Obviously they didn't write it all down. And captured only a very small portion of Jesus words.

So, what's missing?

The fact of the matter is that I see everything in Catholicism as at least implicit in scripture but that does not cut the grade for most Protestants unless of course it is the things that they believe that are only implicitly taught.

Sola Scriptura an be defined from Scripture just as the Trinity can. The Papacy or infallibility isn't even implied.

The Bereans would have had to have seen the spiritual sense (i.e. implicitness) of many things in the Old Testament to come up with everything that Paul orally spoke to them being scriptural.

Says you.

When they deal with the topic at hand and are not a rehash of things I have already dealt with with many protestants on other boards, perhaps I will.

Get over yourself. Puhleeezzz.

ONce again this one has gotten off topic.

Address the issues on their appropriate threads, and people won't feel compelled to bring them onto threads that you are gracing with your esteemed wisdom.

Boy, for a person who is so busy, you sure spent a lot of time addressing nothing but your own demeaning sarcasm. Would have been nice if you would have taken a minute to answer at least one question.

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Frank:
Bible:
Your rebuttal is without objective substance. Therefore, Go in peace! And, when you find those terms in the Bible, let me know! I can't wait to see them. This would refute the argument.
It is easy to pass personal subjective judgement or dismiss and arguement because we do not like it. It is quite another to use objective standards to do so. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. I Thes. 5:21. Again, I am not holding my breath until you do so!

Frank,

The proof is given, and I am not concerned that you dont' recognise it. It is rhetoricvally convenient to accuse someone of the shortcomings of your own position. I note ou use the tactic often.

That's your problem.

Since Paul admonishes us not to get into useless talk with people who arent; interested in anything else, I leave you to continue.

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Lisa, I sure that you would agree that the Holy Spirit works through men, and that the Holy Spirit used men to recognize what which writings were/were not inspired and therefore which writings were/were not Scripture.

Yes.

Could you tell me:

how you think this was done,

You want me to explain how the Holy Spirit works? I can't.

which men the Holy Spirit used to do that,

There were many different men involved in the process.

when it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit through men,

You mean a specific date?

what is your historical evidence to support your understanding of that working of the Spirit?

It's called the New Testament.

I really am interested in what you have to say.

Suuuuuuuure you are. If you have a point, why don't you just make it? That would be such a refreshing change from the loaded questions asked for the mere chance to scoff at something someone says because they word their beliefs differently than someone else.

If you want to discuss this, make your point openly, and I'll gladly oblige.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
T2U,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Lisa, I sure that you would agree that the Holy Spirit works through men, and that the Holy Spirit used men to recognize what which writings were/were not inspired and therefore which writings were/were not Scripture.

Yes.

Could you tell me:

how you think this was done,

You want me to explain how the Holy Spirit works? I can't.

which men the Holy Spirit used to do that,

There were many different men involved in the process.

when it was accomplished by the Holy Spirit through men,

You mean a specific date?

what is your historical evidence to support your understanding of that working of the Spirit?

It's called the New Testament.

I really am interested in what you have to say.

Suuuuuuuure you are. If you have a point, why don't you just make it? That would be such a refreshing change from the loaded questions asked for the mere chance to scoff at something someone says because they word their beliefs differently than someone else.

If you want to discuss this, make your point openly, and I'll gladly oblige.

</font>[/QUOTE]Lisa,we agree that the Holy spirit used men to recognize which writings were inspired and therefore Scripture. Good.

My question to you is which men did the Holy Spirit use, what did these men do, when did they do it, and how do we know this?

If one is unable to answer these questions, then I do not understand why one would accept the particular books of the Bible as Scripture.

As I said before, I really am interested in your answer to these questions.

Ron

 

[thessalonian]

Lisa,

"Thess, says a lot for your intelligence level."

Peace to you lisa. I will be praying for you.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Peace to you lisa. I will be praying for you.

Glad to see my prayers are being answered. You haven't called me a biggot or banging cymbal, yet. It is still early, tho . . . . .

So, I'll keep up the prayers for you.

 

[LisaMC]

T2U,

Lisa,we agree that the Holy spirit used men to recognize which writings were inspired and therefore Scripture. Good.

My question to you is which men did the Holy Spirit use, what did these men do, when did they do it, and how do we know this?

So, basically, you are wanting to discuss how the RCC is soley responsible for providing us with the NT text? Am I right? If so, maybe we should start another thread. Thess, get's upset when his threads are hijacked.

If one is unable to answer these questions, then I do not understand why one would accept the particular books of the Bible as Scripture.

Why? It all boils down to faith in God . . . how or why He chose to reveal to us the way He did doesn't really matter to me.

As I said before, I really am interested in your answer to these questions.

Well, if you really want to discuss who is responsible for compiling all the NT text, how about you start another thread.

God Bless!!!

 

[BobRyan]

Lisa,

Nice post.

Now as to HOW the NT Christians NEW in the NT (the first 100 years) WHICH letter from Paul to "believe" or WHICH letter from Peter to "accept" or WHICH letter from James to accept.

Well - they had "no need" to wait a few centuries for the Catholic church to come along and "tell them".

Of course you already knew that - but it seems to come as a "bit of a surprise" to those you are discussing this with.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Lisa,

Nice post.

Now as to HOW the NT Christians NEW in the NT (the first 100 years) WHICH letter from Paul to "believe" or WHICH letter from Peter to "accept" or WHICH letter from James to accept.

Well - they had "no need" to wait a few centuries for the Catholic church to come along and "tell them".

Of course you already knew that - but it seems to come as a "bit of a surprise" to those you are discussing this with.

In Christ,

Bob

Bob, since you seem to have a handle on it, could you answer my questions then?