Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

[Bible-belted]

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?

The Holy Spirit used everyone. The process of recognising the inspired scriptures was a collective process. This of course does not deny the role of key individuals. But as a colective process it does deny that it was a top down type of process. Councils, as scholars recgonise, did not determine the canon, they simply affirmed the canon that was already, as a practical matter, in place in the various locales.

The fact is the christians knew without a council that the writings of Paul were "other Scriptures". That gospels were also scripture. Just like the Jews knew what to meditate on without an infallible word from some denominational structure.

The only reason this seems hard, as far as I can tell, is that it conflicts with your presuppositions about aiuthority structures and their importance. That doesn't make the truth wrong, it makes your presuppositions wrong. Think about it.

What you need also to bear in mind is that as Christians we can and must assume the canon. We are not skeptics who believe that God has not givn us inspired writings. As Christians we can and must assume that the canon is knowable. That means that any arguments of the type "but you can't really know" are invalid. We can know. You may disagree as to HOW we can know, but you cannot say that we cannot know. And we do not need even to answer the question of HOW we can know. We do need to affirm that we can know.

If you believe that we must know how we can know then you should realise that youare proceeding from the assumptions of the skeptic, the non-Christian. Consider that.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
The Holy Spirit used everyone. The process of recognising the inspired scriptures was a collective process. This of course does not deny the role of key individuals. But as a colective process it does deny that it was a top down type of process. Councils, as scholars recgonise, did not determine the canon, they simply affirmed the canon that was already, as a practical matter, in place in the various locales.

This is at odds with historical evidence. There was a great deal of disagreement as to which writings were Scripture at the time. The Councils met to settle these disagreements.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
Thess,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I can't attribute it to your prayers. I get so much peace from things that bother me in Mass. It really helps my disposition. God bless you.

Peace.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
Check out this link. It goes into depth as to what SS is and isn't:

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

Went there, read that, sounds exactly like what one James R. White said about this subject.

But that was not what I was getting at. You see, I can find all kinds of definitions for Sola Scriptura. The problem is, if I zoom in one one of these definitions as the definition, I get slapped down for not giving the right definition!

Now, if I were to use the definition you give in this link, comprehensive as it is, as the definition of Sola Scriptura, does it speak for all Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical definitions of the subject?

That is what I am getting at!

Which is what I said in my message:

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?

Let me give you this little thing I wrote quite quite a while ago. You won't be satisfied with it I am sure, since it is an analogue of what I am trying to explain and analogues can be quite dangerous and misleading, but I think it goes a long way in attempting to describe what the overall tradition of the Church is:

Paste-in here...

CHURCH TRADITION

How long has it been since a fellow names Bill Gates, along with
a few partners from modest beginnings, formed the the Microsoft
Corporation?

They started out with little to go on: A crude microcomputer based
upon early microprocessor designs and with a limited architecture
and memory, they began programming small but useful programs (the
software) that would do useful things in the microcomputer (the
hardware.)

There were few rules to go by. Such rules had to be learned and
developed the hard way, by trial and error. It was not long before
an opportunity came along for them to produce an Operating System
(OS) that would act as the interface between the hardware and the
software.....like the layering of an onion, the lower layer
interfacing the upper layer with the core. New workers were hired.
New problems were surmounted until finally, the newly created
Corporation became the main stay of the desk top computer we see
today.

What does all of this have to do with tradition (let alone church
tradition?) Does a company like Microsoft have a tradition, a
modus operandi, a policy of some kind, a collective of overall
knowledge that is greater than the individual that produces the
desired result? Sure, but can you really put your finger on what
this tradition is?

Each individual member of the Corporation team, be he/she a
programmer, systems analyst, or whatever, has within themselves,
individually, their own paradigm of thought, method and action.
Each member is different from the other. Each has his or her own
individual plan, and yet they all operate as a team toward a
common goal.

Over the years, there emerges some kind of a master strategy,
a "pool of knowledge" that cannot be described fully despite
all of the Corporation policies, plans, writings, directives
or physical records, and yet all are a part of the collective
or deposit of knowledge, a paradigm of the entire Corporation.
To describe what this collective knowledge (tradition) is would
be nearly impossible in so many words.

What an I doing here? I'm demonstrating a model or an analogy,
albeit inadequate, of the traditions of the Catholic Church.
How much more difficult would it be do describe in simple and
succinct terms, what that tradition is. Absent, of course, from
the Microsoft model is a divine founder and the influence of the
Holy Spirit. That consideration makes such a description that
much more difficult, especially with the accumulation of 2000 or
so years of accumulated tradition.

Simple words cannot do it......like the flea on an elephant's
trunk trying to discern and describe the body of the entire
animal. Now the huge libraries of written words (extra-
scriptural) combined with Holy Scripture is a part of it; data
and doctrines frozen in time as anchor points of light that
the unwritten tradition can dynamically operate.

Now those christian brethren who consider the Bible as their
sole rule of faith and who reject tradition may unknowingly
be following and developing a tradition of their own. It will
certainly not be as extensive as that tradition of the Catholic
Church, but they may be unwittingly developing one despite their
best efforts to avoid such a thing.

I give some examples:

Church by-laws, type of music, structure of prayer, method
of communion, Wed. and Sat. prayer meetings, Sunday school
for children. Rulings of faith on marriage, divorce, use of
alcoholic beverages, movies/entertainment, abortion, birth
control (written or unspoken), tithing, selection of ministers
and pastors. The call for salvation (alter rail call), and
method of baptism, marriage and burial ceremonies, etc.

Now even though many of these "traditions" are Scripture
based, they are often explicit formulations of what is only
implied in Holy Writ. Isn't that what the Catholic Church
has been doing over the centuries? (AFTER the NT was codified
and affirmed by an infallible council of the Catholic Church
in the latter part of the 3rd century!)

Here is an interesting side thought: Is your church a "New
Testament" church? That is to say: Do you follow to the letter,
a conception of what the primitive NT described church was? If
so, then you must also do WITHOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT! That
primitive church you emulate did not have it! All they had was
the oral traditions that originated from the mouth of Jesus
Christ Our Lord! Are you ready to forsake the NT and try it
on tradition alone for a time?

I retrogress here and ponder a challenge once presented to me
in these conferences. I paraphrase: "If the Catholic Church
follows tradition (as well as Scripture) *show* me that
tradition? I see and hold the Bible in my hands, and I can
see, feel and read the words of God, but I cannot see, feel
and read your tradition."

Well, here goes:

Certainly much of tradition is "extra-scriptural" or written
down outside of the Bible. To show you that, you must see, feel
and read, I suppose, the entire contents of the Vatican Library!
The "extra-scriptural" references alone quoted in the latest
edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church would tax most
library space, and yet this is not all there is to the Church's
tradition. There is a "Collective deposit of Faith" among all of
the clergy and the people that has come down from the ages that
simply cannot be measured. While this is unwritten tradition,
a sense of it can be seen in the writings of the early church
fathers.

How do I "show" this unwritten and unseen tradition?

I can only answer this question with another question: How do I
show you, all at once, what is contained in the hearts and minds
of every pope, bishop, priest and layperson in the Church?

How do you measure and show the "unwritten and unseen tradition"
of the Microsoft Corporation? There is one, you know. Although
you cannot attach a divine nature to this tradition, you would
see it vanish if Bill Gates were to dismiss ALL of his workers,
including the older workers who pass down this tradition to new
ones, and then Bill Gates starts completely from scratch with an
entirely new team. He may retain all of the physical plant but
even so, the continuity of mission and purpose is completely lost.
No matter how expert a completely new team may be, they cannot
immediately take over where the dismissed team left off.

Now finally, is the traditions of the Catholic Church without
error? She claims infallibility simply from the promise of
Jesus Christ in that famous text, (Matt. 16:18-20) that "...the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it [church]" And the
one text that cements it, once and for all, when after his
resurrection, He spoke to his disciples who comprised the first
clergy of his church: (Matt. 28:18-20) "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I AM WITH YOU
ALWAYS, until the end of the age [world]." (NAB)

If that is not a promise to keep His church from error, then I
don't know what a promise is!

If the Catholic Church is the only church who can trace Her origins
back to that original primitive church founded by Christ, then if
the Church and Her traditions are in error, Christ failed in his
promises!

Does your church enjoy this infallibility in it's "traditions?"
Only if your church was that church founded by Jesus Christ and
had received those important promises. How far does your church
go back? Joseph Smith? Mary baker Eddy? Martin Luther? John
Calvin or who?

Look for the church founder that promised infallibility, Jesus
Christ Our Lord.

End of paste-in.............

Whew! I know that is a mouth full!

I last said:

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.

First of all, I was talking about the New Testament, not the Old Testament that obviously came before the Church that Christ established.

And secondly, how did the Church operate in her authority before ink first touched papyrus in the writiing of the New Testament? In Acts, we see the effects of Pentecost, when the Church came alive and began the mission as given to it by Christ. But it happened before it was documented on papyrus scrolls! Acts records a past event for our edification and instruction.

And I will add a third point: It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included was 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 is a good link for you to read:

http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

I last said:

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.

Er, ah, can you refute what I say here? Have you ever studied exactly how it was that the New Testament was compiled into one New Testament? Do you deny that the only Church around who could do this do so without authority? If so, then you must question the very authenticity of the bible you hold in your very hands!

I continued:

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.

Did not the Church as established by Christ have authority? Of course, Jesus is the "source" of that authority, or do you think He rescinded that authority when He ascended to the Father in heaven?

No, the authority Christ gave His Church remained with His Church when He ascended, else why give that authority in the first place?

Now, can you point your finger to the very Church that "the Holy Spirit..."preside(s)" over?

I would suggest you start at Pentcost and note the existence of the Church, in her "charter clerty," Peter and the other apostles, and all of the faithful at that time.

Then go in as small steps in time as you can - 1 year after Pentecost, 2 years after Pentecost, 3 years after Pentecost...399 years after Pentecost, 400 years after Pentecost, up to say, about A.D. 1000 (with the first schism from the Church - the Orthodox churches) and note the only Church in existence.

Guess the name of this Church...

And by the holy Spirit residing over this Church, she must be without error, else explain to me the promise Christ made in Mattew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 when He said, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and "I will be with you until the end of the age."

But look at me! I have strayed way off the topic of Sola Scriptura, but then, if you eschew the authority of the Church, you must adhere to the Bible as your only source for doctrine, faith and instruction.

Oops, there I go again!

I'm definining what Sola Scriptura is all by myself!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

[ February 17, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bible-belted:
The Holy Spirit used everyone. The process of recognising the inspired scriptures was a collective process. This of course does not deny the role of key individuals. But as a colective process it does deny that it was a top down type of process. Councils, as scholars recgonise, did not determine the canon, they simply affirmed the canon that was already, as a practical matter, in place in the various locales.

This is at odds with historical evidence. There was a great deal of disagreement as to which writings were Scripture at the time. The Councils met to settle these disagreements. </font>[/QUOTE]No it is not at odds with history at all. What I said does not deny that there were vartiatons in canonical lists. It implicitly affirms that in fact. But it denies the authority that you seem to imply. Councils did not cdecide anything by their own authority. They affirmed existing practices, reflecting existing consensus in the areas those councils repesented.

 

[LisaMC]

Thess,

Actually, I can't attribute it to your prayers. I get so much peace from things that bother me in Mass. It really helps my disposition. God bless you.

Attribute your peace to whomever. I attribute my prayers being answered to God alone. The fact that you are exercising some amount of self-control and not calling names is evidence to me that my prayers for you were answered.

God Bless!!!

 

[LisaMC]

WPutnam,

Went there, read that, sounds exactly like what one James R. White said about this subject.

Hold that thought.

But that was not what I was getting at. You see, I can find all kinds of definitions for Sola Scriptura. The problem is, if I zoom in one one of these definitions as the definition, I get slapped down for not giving the right definition!

Now, I'm not saying you haven't gotten different definitions from people. But, were they official definitions or definitions given by individuals expressing their understanding of the topic. Look at your first statement: . . . sounds exactly like what one James R. White . . . Sounds like consistency to me.

Now, if I were to use the definition you give in this link, comprehensive as it is, as the definition of Sola Scriptura, does it speak for all Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical definitions of the subject?

I can't answer that. But, I can tell you that in my experience in debating/conversing with RCs, I have gotten many different point-of-view and expressions of understanding of RC doctrine. So, if I get five (5) different explanations of say Marian doctrine, that does not mean that RCism has five (5) different teachings on that subject.

First of all, I was talking about the New Testament, not the Old Testament that obviously came before the Church that Christ established.

Scripture as His mode of delivering His commandments to us had already been established. It doesn't matter that the Church was formed before the Gospel was written down. In the beginning was the Word, Gospel existed from the beginning. In the Old Testament God said: Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

In the New Testament it was confirmed: Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


GOSPEL was established before the Church. When it was written down is inconsequential.

And secondly, how did the Church operate in her authority before ink first touched papyrus in the writiing of the New Testament? In Acts, we see the effects of Pentecost, when the Church came alive and began the mission as given to it by Christ. But it happened before it was documented on papyrus scrolls! Acts records a past event for our edification and instruction.

If Jesus Christ appeared today, we wouldn't need our Bibles. God chose to ensure/guarantee that His word was passed on to us accurately by seeing to it that it was put in writing.

It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included was 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!

This is a different subject, which I will gladly discuss if someone will start another thread.

Er, ah, can you refute what I say here? Have you ever studied exactly how it was that the New Testament was compiled into one New Testament? Do you deny that the only Church around who could do this do so without authority? If so, then you must question the very authenticity of the bible you hold in your very hands!

Like I said, if you wish to discuss the New Testament formation, then let's do so on another thread. The subject is to deep to discuss it here.

Did not the Church as established by Christ have authority? Of course, Jesus is the "source" of that authority, or do you think He rescinded that authority when He ascended to the Father in heaven?

Jesus did not give the RCC authority to interpret and define His Gospel. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles when He ascended.

No, the authority Christ gave His Church remained with His Church when He ascended, else why give that authority in the first place?

Says the RCC.

Now, can you point your finger to the very Church that "the Holy Spirit..."preside(s)" over?

Easy. I don't point out denominations. the Holy Spirit is presiding over all of Christianity.

I would suggest you start at Pentcost and note the existence of the Church, in her "charter clerty," Peter and the other apostles, and all of the faithful at that time.

Then go in as small steps in time as you can - 1 year after Pentecost, 2 years after Pentecost, 3 years after Pentecost...399 years after Pentecost, 400 years after Pentecost, up to say, about A.D. 1000 (with the first schism from the Church - the Orthodox churches) and note the only Church in existence.

It was Christ's church, the Apostolic church, and it didn't even resemble the RCC.

And by the holy Spirit residing over this Church, she must be without error, else explain to me the promise Christ made in Mattew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 when He said, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and "I will be with you until the end of the age."

So, you believe the Holy Spirit is occupying His time with the RCC only, and the rest of us separated brethren are on our own. For some reason, I don't believe that.

But look at me! I have strayed way off the topic of Sola Scriptura, but then, if you eschew the authority of the Church, you must adhere to the Bible as your only source for doctrine, faith and instruction.

You lost me here.

God Bless!!!!!!

 

[BobRyan]

T2U Bob, since you seem to have a handle on it, could you answer my questions then?

Already done that.

Acts 17:11 shows the Apostolic teaching on this matter (for those who would care to accept Apostolic teaching).

If your looking for something a bit earlier - try Isaiah 8:20

Enjoy!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by LisaMC:
Went there, read that, sounds exactly like what one James R. White said about this subject.

Hold that thought.

I'm holding. I'm holding!

I last said:

But that was not what I was getting at. You see, I can find all kinds of definitions for Sola Scriptura. The problem is, if I zoom in one one of these definitions as the definition, I get slapped down for not giving the right definition!

Now, I'm not saying you haven't gotten different definitions from people. But, were they official definitions or definitions given by individuals expressing their understanding of the topic. Look at your first statement: . . . sounds exactly like what one James R. White . . . Sounds like consistency to me.

I have no idea if they were "official" definitions or not, although it seems to me that when I look into them, I get different definitions there as well.

And when I say that "it sounds exactly like what one James R. White (would say)," it is indeed, consistant - with James R. White!

But Rev. Joe Smurd down at the next church will say something different, and so on down the street to the next church! Now, I realize that there is a degree of consistency in all of these definitions, but still and all, I have to be careful to always say something like this:

Sample: "According to your doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which says that the Bible alone is the sole source of doctrine, faith and moral teaching as I have been able to define it, correct me if it disagrees with your definition."

If I do not use the caveat similar to what you see here, I will often get called down for it.

I last said:

Now, if I were to use the definition you give in this link, comprehensive as it is, as the definition of Sola Scriptura, does it speak for all Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical definitions of the subject?

I can't answer that. But, I can tell you that in my experience in debating/conversing with RCs, I have gotten many different point-of-view and expressions of understanding of RC doctrine. So, if I get five (5) different explanations of say Marian doctrine, that does not mean that RCism has five (5) different teachings on that subject.

That may be true. I cannot vouch for the scholarship of all Catholic apologists I have encountered in nearly 20 years of doing this on the computer and in the internet and prior to the birth of the internet (Old "FidoNet" and BBS systems) but I have corrected some of them a time or two. Saying that, I must also say that I too am subject to correction!

But I must also say, in my obvious Catholic bias, that most Catholic apologists know their stuff better then their non-Catholic counterparts!

Why? I come to these forums to defend my faith when I see it misrepresented (often quite innocently) or when a out and out lie is said about it. Therefore, myself and other Catholic apologists are usually quite prepared to "do battle" so to speak.

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. One congregation is "Oneness" and deny the Trinity, another accepts it; most deny the salvific nataure of baptism, others believe as we Catholics do, including the validity of the water being poured on, rather then by total immersion.

I could go on and on and on. but I think you get the picture here.

I last said:

First of all, I was talking about the New Testament, not the Old Testament that obviously came before the Church that Christ established.

Scripture as His mode of delivering His commandments to us had already been established. It doesn't matter that the Church was formed before the Gospel was written down.

Why do you say that? Why does it not matter?

I am very interested in how you answer this question.

In the beginning was the Word, Gospel existed from the beginning. In the Old Testament God said: Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

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.

And the quotes you give apply to Christ's new covenant only as a foreshadowing of what was to come when the Messiah comes. But when they were written, they applied to the Jewish nation who was about to be freed from their bondage. And that has all been fulfilled. Unfortunately, that Jewish nation seemingly has rejected, for the most part, the new covenant of Christ and His gospel!

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

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

In the New Testament it was confirmed: Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Again, the Old covenant foreshadowed the new, as you quote here! And that's cool!

Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


GOSPEL was established before the Church. When it was written down is inconsequential.

And that is fine so long as it goes. But then, what you will not find (other then by backwards noting of some foreshadowing) that such things as
the nature of the Eucharist, baptism, the embarrassing power given in John 20:22-23, and other doctrines are in the hearts and minds of the apostles before they were written!

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," all there in the Church before this was written down!

I last said:

And secondly, how did the Church operate in her authority before ink first touched papyrus in the writiing of the New Testament? In Acts, we see the effects of Pentecost, when the Church came alive and began the mission as given to it by Christ. But it happened before it was documented on papyrus scrolls! Acts records a past event for our edification and instruction.

If Jesus Christ appeared today, we wouldn't need our Bibles. God chose to ensure/guarantee that His word was passed on to us accurately by seeing to it that it was put in writing.

AMEN TO THAT!

We would meet Him in the air, if we actually live that long, in this era of time, that the Lord returns!

I also agree with your continuing statement, in that by the providence of God, the New Testament was indeed written! But I must also point out that the very "agent" that wrote them (the "charter clergy" at the time), preserved them, separated the wheat from the chaff of contemporary writings that were deemed not inspired, collated and declared as the divinely inspired "God breathed" New Testament by guess who?

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Before that time, all authority was in the Church, as given to it by Christ. After that, the Church considered and declared that the New Testament is authority equal to her own in weight and determination of faith and doctrine. No other church has the audacity or the authority to make such a claim!

I last said: (noticing I am about to repeat myself)

It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included was 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!

This is a different subject, which I will gladly discuss if someone will start another thread.

Since this is a Baptist Board, I seldom start a new thread, reacting on the subjects that gain my interest.

I previously said:

Er, ah, can you refute what I say here? Have you ever studied exactly how it was that the New Testament was compiled into one New Testament? Do you deny that the only Church around who could do this do so without authority? If so, then you must question the very authenticity of the bible you hold in your very hands!

[/QUOTE]Like I said, if you wish to discuss the New Testament formation, then let's do so on another thread. The subject is to deep to discuss it here.[/quote]

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? How can this be if the Church is the very authority that husbanded the New Testament to what it is today, even declaring the Old Testament as divinely inspired as well! (A bit more then the prophets of old may have done.)

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

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?

Reconcile this for me, please............

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I last said:

Did not the Church as established by Christ have authority? Of course, Jesus is the "source" of that authority, or do you think He rescinded that authority when He ascended to the Father in heaven?

Jesus did not give the RCC authority to interpret and define His Gospel. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles when He ascended.

Explain to me then, Matthew 16:18-19, paying particular attention to the authority given to the Church in this "charter text" of the Church. But I do agree that the holy Spirit came to guide the apostles, the "first clergy" of the Church, AND to their successors, after all, in Matthew 28:20. Christ said, "I will be with you until the end of the age."

At the end of the age, the apostles will be long dead, as they are now dead in this present instant. Therefore, Christ speaks of the successors of the apostles He is speaking to here.

I last said:

No, the authority Christ gave His Church remained with His Church when He ascended, else why give that authority in the first place?

Says the RCC.

No, says the ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The "RCC" (Roman Catholic Church) is a subset of the Catholic Church - The Roman/Latin/Western Rite of the Church. This GREATER Church is the only one who can trace her history back to Christ Himself. She is the only Church that has the audacity to claim an authority given to no other church, who broke away from the Mother Church years ago........

I last said:

Now, can you point your finger to the very Church that "the Holy Spirit..."preside(s)" over?

Easy. I don't point out denominations. the Holy Spirit is presiding over all of Christianity.

"All of Christianity," diverse in their numerous inconsistencies in doctrine and faith?

Let me give you an example of consistency in doctrine and belief:

In 1930, all Christian denominations stood head and shoulder with the Catholic Church in condemning as a serious sin, the practice of artificial birth control.

Who stands with the Catholic Church today on this "troublesome" doctrine?

I last said:

I would suggest you start at Pentcost and note the existence of the Church, in her "charter clerty," Peter and the other apostles, and all of the faithful at that time.

Then go in as small steps in time as you can - 1 year after Pentecost, 2 years after Pentecost, 3 years after Pentecost...399 years after Pentecost, 400 years after Pentecost, up to say, about A.D. 1000 (with the first schism from the Church - the Orthodox churches) and note the only Church in existence.

It was Christ's church, the Apostolic church, and it didn't even resemble the RCC.

Have you ever read the writings of the early church fathers? Some of them go all the way back to the apostolic era in that they were taught at the feet of the apostles! This group of priests and bishops of the Church record for all posterity, exactly what the Church taught and believed immediately at the close of the apostolic era. And guess which Church is directly coupled to these same fathers? There is only one, upon which the term "Catholic" was appended as it became clear as to her universality in the then known civilized world.

I last said:

And by the holy Spirit residing over this Church, she must be without error, else explain to me the promise Christ made in Mattew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20 when He said, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," and "I will be with you until the end of the age."

So, you believe the Holy Spirit is occupying His time with the RCC only, and the rest of us separated brethren are on our own. For some reason, I don't believe that.

Get yourself a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church and note what it says about our non-Catholic Christian brethren who share in the fruits of the original Church as Christ established, albeit in an incomplete way. In many ways, you are "Catholics at large" for which I hope and pray that some how, some way, you all can become "complete" in her, that indeed....

There would be one fold and one shepherd.

I continued:

But look at me! I have strayed way off the topic of Sola Scriptura, but then, if you eschew the authority of the Church, you must adhere to the Bible as your only source for doctrine, faith and instruction.

You lost me here.

Sola Scriptura must be the Protestant doctrine simply because Protestantism does not accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church! Therefore, the only "authority" you have left is Holy scripture!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+++


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[LisaMC]

Bill,

Good afternoon!!!!

I'm holding. I'm holding!

Still holding? If so, you can let go now.

But that was not what I was getting at. You see, I can find all kinds of definitions for Sola Scriptura. The problem is, if I zoom in one one of these definitions as the definition, I get slapped down for not giving the right definition!

But, my point is what definition are you giving? What you've been told by other people, or what the official definition of sola scriptura is? See, I can tell you numerous things that I was told by other RCs which were inconsistant with what other RCers said. That fact, however, is not grounds for negating or disproving RC doctrine.

I have no idea if they were "official" definitions or not, although it seems to me that when I look into them, I get different definitions there as well.

Then you can't espouse "I can't find a definitive definition" because you get different explanations from individual people.

And when I say that "it sounds exactly like what one James R. White (would say)," it is indeed, consistant - with James R. White!

Okay, you have your James R. White! I've heard the name, but am not sure if I've read anything by him. Then you have the author of the article I linked you two, Robert M. Bowman, President of Atlanta Apologetics. Two different sources which you claim state the exact same thing in regards to SS. You should consider that these two sources are perhaps legitimate and reliable.

But Rev. Joe Smurd down at the next church will say something different, and so on down the street to the next church! Now, I realize that there is a degree of consistency in all of these definitions, but still and all, I have to be careful to always say something like this:

This can be said in regards to RC teachings also. That's why you don't rely on Rev. Joe Smurd. I had a Catholic friend on another board tell me that he knew of a RC Priest who had been removed from his ministerial position because he was teaching that the Eucharist was symbolic. It happens--in all denominations.

If I do not use the caveat similar to what you see here, I will often get called down for it.

Well, your first mistake is that you are paraphrasing what you have heard . . . . That would never work if someone was addressing RC teachings.

Now, if I were to use the definition you give in this link, comprehensive as it is, as the definition of Sola Scriptura, does it speak for all Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical definitions of the subject?

And I said, I can not speak for everyone. I can not tell you how all protestants will define in their own words sola scriptura Another common error made by RC apologists is to lump all non-RC denominations into one group and compare accordingly--you are comparing apples to oranges. Comparisons should be made by comparing RCism to say Methodist, Penecostal, Assemblies of God, etc . . . . not to protestantism as a whole.

Continued . . . .

 

[LisaMC]

Continuation . . . .

But I must also say, in my obvious Catholic bias, that most Catholic apologists know their stuff better then their non-Catholic counterparts!

Could you be more specific?

Why? I come to these forums to defend my faith when I see it misrepresented (often quite innocently) or when a out and out lie is said about it. Therefore, myself and other Catholic apologists are usually quite prepared to "do battle" so to speak.

O--kaaaaaaay. . . .

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.

That's what happens when you insist on lumping all non-RCs into one category. Every denomination has a web site that states it's fundemental beliefs--and if you can take in all there is to know about RCism, it's not beyond your ability to know the basic tenets of other denominations.

One congregation is "Oneness" and deny the Trinity, another accepts it; most deny the salvific nataure of baptism, others believe as we Catholics do, including the validity of the water being poured on, rather then by total immersion.

I could go on and on and on. but I think you get the picture here.

Yes, but what is your point?

Me: Scripture as His mode of delivering His commandments to us had already been established. It doesn't matter that the Church was formed before the Gospel was written down.

You:Why do you say that? Why does it not matter?

Because, just because it had yet to be delivered, in writing or by word of mouth, does not mean the Gospel did not exist. God set precedent when He etched the Ten Commandments in stone. Did Jesus quote Jewish traditions when teaching or rebuking? No, He quoted OT Scripture.[/quote]

I am very interested in how you answer this question.

Simply put, supposing the Church did form before the Gospel was written down, you still have to admit that the Gospel existed before the Church. When it was writen down does not matter.

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 think you've missed my point.

Continued . . . .

 

[LisaMC]

Continuation . . . .

And the quotes you give apply to Christ's new covenant only as a foreshadowing of what was to come when the Messiah comes. But when they were written, they applied to the Jewish nation who was about to be freed from their bondage. And that has all been fulfilled. Unfortunately, that Jewish nation seemingly has rejected, for the most part, the new covenant of Christ and His gospel!

Okay, now I know you missed my point. My point was that even throughout the OT times, God already knew the plans of the New Covenant. The Gospel, though not yet delivered, already existed.

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

But, not before the Gospel was formed.

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.)

Yes--I've said it before. The Gospel did not just fall out of heaven already written down.

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

When Jesus and His apostles walked the earth, we didn't need the affirmation of Scripture. I, also, said before, if Jesus appears today, anything He says will overrule Scripture.

Again, the Old covenant foreshadowed the new, as you quote here! And that's cool!

The point is the Gospel, though yet to be delivered, already existed.

And that is fine so long as it goes. But then, what you will not find (other then by backwards noting of some foreshadowing) that such things as the nature of the Eucharist, baptism, the embarrassing power given in John 20:22-23, and other doctrines are in the hearts and minds of the apostles before they were written!

Well, I have my belief as to why you don't see the nature of the 'Real Presence.' And, insofar as those things you listed may not have been forshadowed for us, does not mean they were not clearly formulated in God's mind.

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," all there in the Church before this was written down!

That is the current RC interpretation of that passage, and you of course know I disagree. I can also quote Early Church Fathers who possessed a different understanding than that taught by the RCC today.

And secondly, how did the Church operate in her authority before ink first touched papyrus in the writiing of the New Testament? In Acts, we see the effects of Pentecost, when the Church came alive and began the mission as given to it by Christ. But it happened before it was documented on papyrus scrolls! Acts records a past event for our edification and instruction.

I also agree with your continuing statement, in that by the providence of God, the New Testament was indeed written! But I must also point out that the very "agent" that wrote them (the "charter clergy" at the time), preserved them, separated the wheat from the chaff of contemporary writings that were deemed not inspired, collated and declared as the divinely inspired "God breathed" New Testament by guess who?

Well, I know you attribute the availability of the Canon to the RCC, I disagree.

However, that's another complicated subject for another time.

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

If you mean "catholic" as in "universal," I might just agree . . . .

Before that time, all authority was in the Church, as given to it by Christ.

No, the only possesser of authority is Jesus Christ, God. Not the Church. The church is a vessel by which the Gospel is delivered.

After that, the Church considered and declared that the New Testament is authority equal to her own in weight and determination of faith and doctrine. No other church has the audacity or the authority to make such a claim!

I agree that the RCC has the audacity to make that claim, unfortunately the "authority" you are referring to is non-existant.

It was the Church who husbanded the very New Testament, collated it, removing what was not inspired and determined and included was 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!

And I said, I will gladly discuss this on another thread.

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, I have explained to you that the Church did not exist before the New Testament.

How can this be if the Church is the very authority that husbanded the New Testament to what it is today, even declaring the Old Testament as divinely inspired as well! (A bit more then the prophets of old may have done.)

The church that you are referring to does not possess this authority. You may find it relevant and important when discussing sola scritpura, but as you can see, these responses are already long and in depth. If we delve into the canonization of Scripture, there's no way we could properly stay focused.

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

That is not what sola scriptura implies or says. There is but one authority . . . . You have created a false dilemma for yourself.

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?

Because the authority that the RCC claims for itself does not exist.

Reconcile this for me, please............

Until you get a true understanding of what sola scriptura is, no one will be able to reconcile this for you. How can you do that? Lot's of study and prayer is all I can recommend.

 

[LisaMC]

Bill,

I continue still. . . .

Explain to me then, Matthew 16:18-19, paying particular attention to the authority given to the Church in this "charter text" of the Church.

How do you expect me to explain this to you? You understand that I don't hold to the same interpretation of Matt 16:18-19?

But I do agree that the holy Spirit came to guide the apostles, the "first clergy" of the Church, AND to their successors, after all, in Matthew 28:20. Christ said, "I will be with you until the end of the age."

And in the guise of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is still with us.

At the end of the age, the apostles will be long dead, as they are now dead in this present instant. Therefore, Christ speaks of the successors of the apostles He is speaking to here.

You see this verse referring to the supposed successors, the RCC clergy only. Non-RCs see it as Jesus being ever present, as the Holy Spirit, guiding all of christianity, all who are called to serve Him in whatever manner.

No, says the ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The "RCC" (Roman Catholic Church) is a subset of the Catholic Church - The Roman/Latin/Western Rite of the Church.

Wow!! First time I've seen an RC acknowledge this.

This GREATER Church is the only one who can trace her history back to Christ Himself.

Uh . . . by GREATER are you referring to the RCC. All Christianity can trace it's roots back to Christ.

She is the only Church that has the audacity to claim an authority given to no other church

Yes it certainly takes audacity to make such a claim.

who broke away from the Mother Church years ago........

The corrupt institution that lost much of it's tyranical power around the Reformation era was not a Mother Church, and I think Christ would be offended by that claim.

"All of Christianity," diverse in their numerous inconsistencies in doctrine and faith?

Yep.

Let me give you an example of consistency in doctrine and belief:"All of Christianity," diverse in their numerous inconsistencies in doctrine and faith?

Let me give you an example of consistency in doctrine and belief:

In 1930, all Christian denominations stood head and shoulder with the Catholic Church in condemning as a serious sin, the practice of artificial birth control.

Who stands with the Catholic Church today on this "troublesome" doctrine?

You believe that the "supposed" cement the RCC has planted itself in qualifies as credible consistency. I believe the RCC has trapped itself by its past.

Just because the RCC stands by it's original teaching that Birth Control is a sin, does not make it a sin and does not place the RCC on a plane above the rest of Christianity. The RCC, though it espouses "development of doctrine," can not change it's view on birth control, because of the implications of making such a change. Instead, the RCC creates loopholes, there's a way to get around just about every RCC doctrine. Besides, birth control is immaterial to our argument.

Have you ever read the writings of the early church fathers? Some of them go all the way back to the apostolic era in that they were taught at the feet of the apostles! This group of priests and bishops of the Church record for all posterity, exactly what the Church taught and believed immediately at the close of the apostolic era.

Mmmmhem. I've read most of the earliest fathers. I started with the earliest and have been working my way up/forward.

And guess which Church is directly coupled to these same fathers? There is only one, upon which the term "Catholic" was appended as it became clear as to her universality in the then known civilized world.

I know which church likes to claim the ECFs, however, when reading the actual writings of the fathers, a different story emerges.

Get yourself a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church and note what it says about our non-Catholic Christian brethren who share in the fruits of the original Church as Christ established, albeit in an incomplete way. In many ways, you are "Catholics at large" for which I hope and pray that some how, some way, you all can become "complete" in her, that indeed....

Have one and read it. Should I feel special? Endeared or impressed. Like you said, the RCC sure doesn't care to exercise audacity.

Sola Scriptura must be the Protestant doctrine simply because Protestantism does not accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church! Therefore, the only "authority" you have left is Holy scripture!

Oh. And the RCC refuses to openly admit to understand, comprehend, or attempt to grasp the true essence of sola scriptura, because to do so would be to admit that the RCC never possessed the authority it so audaciously claims.

 

[WPutnam]

I last said:

But that was not what I was getting at. You see, I can find all kinds of definitions for Sola Scriptura. The problem is, if I zoom in one of these definitions as the definition, I get slapped down for not giving the right definition!

But, my point is what definition are you giving? What you've been told by other people, or what the official definition of sola scriptura is? See, I can tell you numerous things that I was told by other RCs which were inconsistant with what other RCers said. That fact, however, is not grounds for negating or disproving RC doctrine.

Thats a very good question!

You see, 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.

Will the real Sola Scriptura doctrine stand up? (paraphrased)

I last said:

I have no idea if they were "official" definitions or not, although it seems to me that when I look into them, I get different definitions there as well.

Then you can't espouse "I can't find a definitive definition" because you get different explanations from individual people.

BINGO! (Famous Catholic term!)

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?

I last said:

And when I say that "it sounds exactly like what one James R. White (would say)," it is indeed, consistant - with James R. White!

Okay, you have your James R. White! I've heard the name, but am not sure if I've read anything by him. Then you have the author of the article I linked you two, Robert M. Bowman, President of Atlanta Apologetics. Two different sources which you claim state the exact same thing in regards to SS. You should consider that these two sources are perhaps legitimate and reliable.

James R. While is probably the foremost Protestant apologists who often engages Catholic apologists in formal debates. Here is his website:

http://www.aomin.org/

I am not sure this is the front page of his site, but behold, he gives some (or all) of his Sola Scriptura definition right there! I have debated him once or twice many years ago, and I do not consider myself in the same caliber of a debater - He does this professionally. But he does take on many professional Catholic debaters, offering tapes of most of them. He does come off as rather abrasive and borders on the ad hominem in his remarks, but you may find him interesting.

Anyway, I make no claims on him, not at all!

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.

As 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.) 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...

I continued:

But Rev. Joe Smurd down at the next church will say something different, and so on down the street to the next church! Now, I realize that there is a degree of consistency in all of these definitions, but still and all, I have to be careful to always say something like this:

This can be said in regards to RC teachings also. That's why you don't rely on Rev. Joe Smurd. I had a Catholic friend on another board tell me that he knew of a RC Priest who had been removed from his ministerial position because he was teaching that the Eucharist was symbolic. It happens--in all denominations.

Oh, I don't rely on Rev. Smurd at all! I know better, having been challenged on them!

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!

I last said:

If I do not use the caveat similar to what you see here, I will often get called down for it.

Well, your first mistake is that you are paraphrasing what you have heard . . . . That would never work if someone was addressing RC teachings.

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?

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?

I continued:

Now, if I were to use the definition you give in this link, comprehensive as it is, as the definition of Sola Scriptura, does it speak for all Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical definitions of the subject?

And I said, I can not speak for everyone. I can not tell you how all protestants will define in their own words sola scriptura Another common error made by RC apologists is to lump all non-RC denominations into one group and compare accordingly--you are comparing apples to oranges. Comparisons should be made by comparing RCism to say Methodist, Penecostal, Assemblies of God, etc . . . . not to protestantism as a whole.

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 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?

But I manage, having confronted this issue for years so really, it is no biggy for me any more.

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I continued:

But I must also say, in my obvious Catholic bias, that most Catholic apologists know their stuff better then their non-Catholic counterparts!

Could you be more specific?

My goodness, girl, must I go back and relate my experiences over the years?

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. Saying that, you must also know that I have encountered non-Catholic apologists who were very well prepared!

(Just in error, that's all! Heehee!)

I last said:

Why? I come to these forums to defend my faith when I see it misrepresented (often quite innocently) or when a out and out lie is said about it. Therefore, myself and other Catholic apologists are usually quite prepared to "do battle" so to speak.

--kaaaaaaay. . . .

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.

That's what happens when you insist on lumping all non-RCs into one category. Every denomination has a web site that states it's fundemental beliefs--and if you can take in all there is to know about RCism, it's not beyond your ability to know the basic tenets of other denominations.

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!

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

I last said:

One congregation is "Oneness" and deny the Trinity, another accepts it; most deny the salvific nature of baptism, others believe as we Catholics do, including the validity of the water being poured on, rather then by total immersion.

I could go on and on and on. but I think you get the picture here.

Yes, but what is your point?

Whew! I thought it was obvious! When it comes to defining doctrine, we must steer clear of attempting to define a similar doctrine in all of Protestantism. 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?

Me: Scripture as His mode of delivering His commandments to us had already been established. It doesn't matter that the Church was formed before the Gospel was written down.

You:Why do you say that? Why does it not matter?

Because, just because it had yet to be delivered, in writing or by word of mouth, does not mean the Gospel did not exist. God set precedent when He etched the Ten Commandments in stone. Did Jesus quote Jewish traditions when teaching or rebuking? No, He quoted OT Scripture.

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...

I last commented:

I am very interested in how you answer this question.

Simply put, supposing the Church did form before the Gospel was written down, you still have to admit that the Gospel existed before the Church. When it was writen down does not matter.

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

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 think you've missed my point.

Perhaps you should state it again...

I continued:

And the quotes you give apply to Christ's new covenant only as a foreshadowing of what was to come when the Messiah comes. But when they were written, they applied to the Jewish nation who was about to be freed from their bondage. And that has all been fulfilled. Unfortunately, that Jewish nation seemingly has rejected, for the most part, the new covenant of Christ and His gospel!

Okay, now I know you missed my point. My point was that even throughout the OT times, God already knew the plans of the New Covenant. The Gospel, though not yet delivered, already existed.

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! 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.

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.

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

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

But, not before the Gospel was formed.

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. It did not exist in the physical form of words on papyrus. And if it did not exist in that physical form, whence comes Sola Scriptura?

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.)

Yes--I've said it before. The Gospel did not just fall out of heaven already written down.

Good for you!

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

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? 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?

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


Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

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

When Jesus and His apostles walked the earth, we didn't need the affirmation of Scripture. I, also, said before, if Jesus appears today, anything He says will overrule Scripture.

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?

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? 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?

Most lay Christians had never seen a papyrus scroll, let alone, could even read it! You see, about 95% pf the population were illiterate. Where, then, did they go for their authority in confirmation of their faith, doctrine and morals, Lisa?

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

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?

Think hard, Lisa!

Again, the Old covenant foreshadowed the new, as you quote here! And that's cool!

The point is the Gospel, though yet to be delivered, already existed.

Non sequitur to the issue at hand, Lisa.

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!

And that is fine so long as it goes. But then, what you will not find (other then by backwards noting of some foreshadowing) that such things as the nature of the Eucharist, baptism, the embarrassing power given in John 20:22-23, and other doctrines are in the hearts and minds of the apostles before they were written!

Well, I have my belief as to why you don't see the nature of the 'Real Presence.' And, insofar as those things you listed may not have been forshadowed for us, does not mean they were not clearly formulated in God's mind.

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!

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!

)

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," all there in the Church before this was written down!

[QIUOTE]That is the current RC interpretation of that passage, and you of course know I disagree. I can also quote Early Church Fathers who possessed a different understanding than that taught by the RCC today.[/QUOTE]

Be my guest!

I have probably seen such attempts before and refuted them...

I continued...

And secondly, how did the Church operate in her authority before ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament? In Acts, we see the effects of Pentecost, when the Church came alive and began the mission as given to it by Christ. But it happened before it was documented on papyrus scrolls! Acts records a past event for our edification and instruction.

You had no comment here...

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I also agree with your continuing statement, in that by the providence of God, the New Testament was indeed written! But I must also point out that the very "agent" that wrote them (the "charter clergy" at the time), preserved them, separated the wheat from the chaff of contemporary writings that were deemed not inspired, collated and declared as the divinely inspired "God breathed" New Testament by guess who?

Well, I know you attribute the availability of the Canon to the RCC, I disagree. However, that's another complicated subject for another time.

Good! I will look forward to that, but in the meanwhile, 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?

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!

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

If you mean "catholic" as in "universal," I might just agree . . .

You're alright, Lisa!

Before that time, all authority was in the Church, as given to it by Christ.

No, the only possesser of authority is Jesus Christ, God. Not the Church. The church is a vessel by which the Gospel is delivered.

Of course! 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.

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.

We are nearing the end, where I said:

After that, the Church considered and declared that the New Testament is authority equal to her own in weight and determination of faith and doctrine. No other church has the audacity or the authority to make such a claim!

I agree that the RCC has the audacity to make that claim, unfortunately the "authority" you are referring to is non-existant.

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?

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!

And I said, I will gladly discuss this on another thread.

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, I have explained to you that the Church did not exist before the New Testament.

How can this be? If the New Testament "existed" in the mind of God from all eternity, did not also holy 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 find that quite interesting..................

I continued...

How can this be if the Church is the very authority that husbanded the New Testament to what it is today, even declaring the Old Testament as divinely inspired as well! (A bit more then the prophets of old may have done.)

The church that you are referring to does not possess this authority. You may find it relevant and important when discussing sola scritpura, but as you can see, these responses are already long and in depth. If we delve into the canonization of Scripture, there's no way we could properly stay focused.

And you are going to be surprised to see the length of this post!

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?

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

That is not what sola scriptura implies or says. There is but one authority . . . . You have created a false dilemma for yourself.

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

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?

Because the authority that the RCC claims for itself does not exist.

Shall we cut-out those same places of scripture I suggested above?

Reconcile this for me, please............

Until you get a true understanding of what sola scriptura is, no one will be able to reconcile this for you. How can you do that? Lot's of study and prayer is all I can recommend.

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!

This will probably be divided into four parts, else it will not post. I suggest we end it here, as we have probably gone about as far with this issue as we can, at least for now. I will be active in BaptistBoard on and off, as I am most active in CARM and one other forum at the moment.

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

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

God bless,

PAX

Bill+++


Christ has no body now but yours;
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world.
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good.
Yours are the hands with which
he blesses all the world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

- St. Therese of Avila -

 

[LisaMC]

Here's an interesting article:

Sola scriptura
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) is one of five important Latin slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the Church's only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible.

Check out this link: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[LisaMC]

Here's another article:

A Refutation of SOLO Scriptura

Check out this link:

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