Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible? [Archive]

BBAS 64

20th October 2007, 06:27 PM

you have a different definition? Sola scriptura means simply soley scripture. It was and is not a part of Catholic doctrine certainly, arose with Luther, after of course, he had removed all the books from the bible that conflicted with his interpretation.

Good Day, SpiritMeadow

But, The question still remains....

What is Luther's definition of Sola Scriptura?

Soley Scripture, well that is a good start. Let's ask a question:

Where is one to found all matters that conern the faith?

Augustine says and I agree:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Is Luther any differnet, are you?

Which version of Luthers translation to you refer, by year please....Conflicted with his interpretation, seems you have no idea what interpertation means.

LOL...unfortunately in his lifetime, the first split occurred with zeilwig? in switzerland who had his own interpretation, and then there was Calvin, and on and on and on...and now we have in excess of 30,000 sola scriptura churches, all claiming the REAL truth. and happily you add nearly 300 more each year. Yeah, its the right concept alright.

Jerome

"The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own." - Jerome (Letter 16:2)

Well the curve over time is really not so bad..

"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

Before Jerome we can see schism between all kinds of single people with in the church, they were denoms of there own. The RCC is just an other denomination, started by the bishop of Rome.

You may disagree with the concept, but you can not run from the historical fact this has always existed in the church.

In Him,

Bill

Albion

20th October 2007, 07:42 PM

There is no place in the Bible where it says that the Bible alone is the final authority

I think the mistake that is usually made is approaching Sola Scriptura as though it were a doctrine about Jesus or the afterlife, like the divinity of the Son or the nature of our heavenly home.

It is a statement that means no more or less than that the Word of God, i.e. Scripture, is to be taken for what it itself says it is--revelation. Since there is no warrant in scripture for substituting any other source, or considering any other to be better than God's word, and certainly no support for supplanting God's word with human speculation, we affirm that the Bible is what we will go by in all matters bearing upon our salvation, just as the Church Fathers did.

Catholics have an alternative, i.e. Holy Tradition. There is nothing in scripture that speaks of this method, either.

The question is only this--what do we look to for our guidance? Is it that which we all agree is from God...oir something else?

Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that anything that is not specifically mentioned word for word in the Bible is not the truth.

No. It doesn't say that. He didn't say that. What he said is NOT that these other ideas are untruthful, just that we cannot know if they are, and that, in any case, believing in them cannot be required of us as something necessary to salvation.

SpiritMeadow

21st October 2007, 01:51 PM

Good Day, SpiritMeadow

But, The question still remains....

What is Luther's definition of Sola Scriptura?

Soley Scripture, well that is a good start. Let's ask a question:

Where is one to found all matters that conern the faith?

Augustine says and I agree:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

Is Luther any differnet, are you?

Which version of Luthers translation to you refer, by year please....Conflicted with his interpretation, seems you have no idea what interpertation means.

Jerome

"The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own." - Jerome (Letter 16:2)

Well the curve over time is really not so bad..

"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

Before Jerome we can see schism between all kinds of single people with in the church, they were denoms of there own. The RCC is just an other denomination, started by the bishop of Rome.

You may disagree with the concept, but you can not run from the historical fact this has always existed in the church.

In Him,

Bill

I don't know what you think Augustine was saying but you're missing the point. He surely wasn't limiting the Church to only scripture. The very title of the section suggests the point (Catholic Doctrine). Doctrine more correctly referred to as Dogma is the result of what Augustine talks about in what you quoted. What you aren't getting is Catholics draw their reason for being not from the Bible but from Jesus Christ, who through his Church establishes truth. Thus the bible is not the sole repository of revelation, but indeed revelation continues and has done so since the beginning of time.

I think the mistake that is usually made is approaching Sola Scriptura as though it were a doctrine about Jesus or the afterlife, like the divinity of the Son or the nature of our heavenly home.

It is a statement that means no more or less than that the Word of God, i.e. Scripture, is to be taken for what it itself says it is--revelation. Since there is no warrant in scripture for substituting any other source, or considering any other to be better than God's word, and certainly no support for supplanting God's word with human speculation, we affirm that the Bible is what we will go by in all matters bearing upon our salvation, just as the Church Fathers did.
Neither is there authority in the bible for such a belief. Course that would only lead to circular logic in any event. And Catholics of course do not believe in the inerrency of scripture on all counts, but only that necessary for faith and salvation. The Church has long stated that the Bible for instance is not meant to explain history or science. The Church recognizes that the humans who wrote the various documents we now refer to as Bible brought their own experiences and beliefs to bear on their writing. God we believe disallowed them to err as it referred to faith and salvation. All else is what it is.
Catholics have an alternative, i.e. Holy Tradition. There is nothing in scripture that speaks of this method, either.

And there is nothing that speaks against it either. Tradition does in fact find its basis in scripture however.

The question is only this--what do we look to for our guidance? Is it that which we all agree is from God...oir something else?
As I said earlier, the Church gains its authority from Jesus, passed down through the apostolic line. Her traditions and dogma with the Bible extend the full revelation of God, and are the means by which the Holy Spirit continues to impart revelation to the Church.

No. It doesn't say that. He didn't say that. What he said is NOT that these other ideas are untruthful, just that we cannot know if they are, and that, in any case, believing in them cannot be required of us as something necessary to salvation.

Albion

21st October 2007, 03:39 PM

I don't know what you think Augustine was saying but you're missing the point. He surely wasn't limiting the Church to only scripture.

In the narrowest sense, no. And to be consistent, he didn't absolutely rule out using Ouija boards in order to find the truth. But I spoke of the Fathers generally, and they spoke frequently of what they believed and were teaching as being based upon scripture. They did not offer that they were basing it upon some "Holy Tradition" as is taught in the RCC. So do we go by what the supposed authorities say or by what they didn't say?

What you aren't getting is Catholics draw their reason for being not from the Bible but from Jesus Christ, who through his Church establishes truth.

Sounds pretty, doesn't it? But the only sure source of knowing what Jesus said is the Bible. There is nothing you know about salvation or the Sermon on the Mount, etc. except from the scriptures. In fact, there is no doctrine from Holy Tradition that the Church doesn't try to justify by reference to...what? Oh, to the Bible.

Thus the bible is not the sole repository of revelation,

Yes, it is. You can say that you've talked to Jesus lately, but Divine Revelation is all the the Church has to draw upon for sure and certain guidance as to God's will and intention for us.

indeed revelation continues and has done so since the beginning of time.

It's merely that there is no substance to this otherwise sage-sounding line. (To be clear, I assume that we're not speaking of Herbert W. Armstrong or Joseph Smith, Jr., but of the RCC's Holy Tradition methodology)

Just name me one must-believe-to-be-saved doctrine that is from Holy Tradition that has no relationship to the Bible. Now that would make real what otherwise is a slogan.

And there is nothing that speaks against it either. Tradition does in fact find its basis in scripture however.

Uh, no. It doesn't. The verse that is usually cited in an attempt to suppor that theory only says that we are to hold to the "traditions" handed on. We all have "traditions" including the passing on of the Gospel, orally or otherwise. This has nothing to do with (Sacred) Tradition, with a capital T. And Catholics know this as well as anyone else since they are quick to point out that if we say they believe in something because it's old, they will respond by saying "those are traditions, not Tradition." Holy or Sacred Tradition is a system of establishing doctrine by presuming to have established an unbroken and universally accepted belief, even if not found in the Bible. Anyone with a dictionary can see that this is not what "traditions" are or do.

SpiritMeadow

21st October 2007, 06:05 PM

In the narrowest sense, no. And to be consistent, he didn't absolutely rule out using Ouija boards in order to find the truth. But I spoke of the Fathers generally, and they spoke frequently of what they believed and were teaching as being based upon scripture. They did not offer that they were basing it upon some "Holy Tradition" as is taught in the RCC. So do we go by what the supposed authorities say or by what they didn't say?

"One must remember of course that to the Early Fathers there wouldn't be much they would think of as being tradition given the short passage of time. Tradition does denote a passage of time wherein certain practices have been found agreeable to all over a significant period of time, justifying the conclusion that it is God's revelation."

Sounds pretty, doesn't it? But the only sure source of knowing what Jesus said is the Bible. There is nothing you know about salvation or the Sermon on the Mount, etc. except from the scriptures. In fact, there is no doctrine from Holy Tradition that the Church doesn't try to justify by reference to...what? Oh, to the Bible.

Sorry it is for you. Factually we may never learn anything more about these events absent further manuscript finds. To suggest that we learn nothing about salvation not found in the Bible is unbelieveably narrow, but to be expected of those who have left the Church and seek to justify their existence by twisting Catholic dogma. Alas I cannot prove a negative as your last statement calls forth. But I would suggest the male priesthood is almost exclusively a Tradition rather than scriptural. The Holy See has said as much.

Yes, it is. You can say that you've talked to Jesus lately, but Divine Revelation is all the the Church has to draw upon for sure and certain guidance as to God's will and intention for us.
LOL...I love the fiat...Of course you can no more prove the truth of you opinion that I can mine. My church teaches and I do believe God did not go silent after the last sentence dotted with the final period by the last writer of the NT. I guess the Holy Spirit doesn't mean to you what it means to us. God continually reveals through and in His Creation.

It's merely that there is no substance to this otherwise sage-sounding line. (To be clear, I assume that we're not speaking of Herbert W. Armstrong or Joseph Smith, Jr., but of the RCC's Holy Tradition methodology)

See above.

Just name me one must-believe-to-be-saved doctrine that is from Holy Tradition that has no relationship to the Bible. Now that would make real what otherwise is a slogan.

I did. And its really okay...Don't believe it at all. We do understand. Our faith is not dependent on others being false. YOu fell away from us, not the reverse.

Uh, no. It doesn't. The verse that is usually cited in an attempt to suppor that theory only says that we are to hold to the "traditions" handed on. We all have "traditions" including the passing on of the Gospel, orally or otherwise. This has nothing to do with (Sacred) Tradition, with a capital T. And Catholics know this as well as anyone else since they are quick to point out that if we say they believe in something because it's old, they will respond by saying "those are traditions, not Tradition." Holy or Sacred Tradition is a system of establishing doctrine by presuming to have established an unbroken and universally accepted belief, even if not found in the Bible. Anyone with a dictionary can see that this is not what "traditions" are or do.

I'm sorry, you seem to be taking both sides now. I just love it when non-Catholics attempt to tell Catholics about how our Church operates. Your understanding of Tradition v tradition is a bit off kilter. Your last statement is essentially correct, but it is not correct to say "even if" not found in the bible. It is not directed in the bible, but still, the intitial threads exist making it a logical deduction.

The dogma of transubstantiation is not found directly in the bible. Still it is logically deduced from what is in the bible. The same for Trinity. Any unschooled fundie will rant about there being no biblical basis for Trinity, since the word is not found. Trinity is dogma, outside the Bible but drawing from it by necessity.

Albion

22nd October 2007, 09:07 AM

I'm sorry, you seem to be taking both sides now.

And I'm sorry that you haven't been able to follow the points made. If I wasn't clear enough, I will help you by clarifying whatever it is that you aren't clear on.

I just love it when non-Catholics attempt to tell Catholics about how our Church operates.

And I just love it when Catholics assume that membership in the RCC makes one an expert in all of its beliefs, history, and teachings, and that no one else can possibly know anything of these matters since, after all, they are "non-Catholics." They are, after all, a matter of record and no secret. Don't forget either that on forums such as this one you are dealing with "non-Catholics" who may have been members of the RCC themselves for many more years than you have and are well-versed in her teachings...just that what they learned and experienced led them to another part of Christ's Church.

Your understanding of Tradition v tradition is a bit off kilter.

Sounds like you didn't get the point but had to say something.

Let me in on which part of it troubles or confuses you, and I'll try another way of explaining it.

Your last statement is essentially correct, but it is not correct to say "even if" not found in the bible. It is not directed in the bible, but still, the intitial threads exist making it a logical deduction.

"Initial threads?" Is that another way of saying that it is not in the Bible, but we found something that could possibly be considered remotely connected to the general idea we want to make into an obligatory doctrine, using a lot of human speculation? Defend that, please. For example, I asked for even one doctrine from Tradition that does not depend upon the Bible for its justification...even when the Bible is said to be insufficient for us. It can't be both insufficient or incomplete but also the basis for doctrines derived from another method at the same time.

The dogma of transubstantiation is not found directly in the bible. Still it is logically deduced from what is in the bible.

So you say, but it is not. Since the Church didn't believe in it for about 1200 years, it is interesting to contemplate how it could have escaped every Christian's notice for so long.

The same for Trinity.

Not the same for the Trinity. The triune nature of God
is inescapable FROM A READING OF THE BIBLE. This requires no grasping at "initial threads.

Any unschooled fundie will rant about there being no biblical basis for Trinity,

Well, I guess we know now who the "uneducated" one is, since Fundamentalism explicitly accepts and defends the Trinitarian doctrine!

Read this and learn something today--

Fundamentalist: (Defined by the World Congress of Fundamentalists in 1976)

A born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who

Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
The doctrine of the Trinity
The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
The resurrection of saints to life eternal
The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;It goes without saying (for most people) that since Fundamentalists believe in the Trinity, contrary to what a Catholic operating from stereotypes instead of knowledge might think, this is not a doctrine derived from "Holy Tradition" instead of from the Bible. If you were to read the Nicene Creed, you'd find that the writers even included in it the source of their belief--"the scriptures." That's just another way of knowing that the Trinity is not from Tradition.

SpiritMeadow

22nd October 2007, 04:32 PM

albion your Anglican? Gee i would have thought you were as near to Catholic as Catholic. Perhaps I'm confusing it with the English Anglican Church? Ya know the one who left the Church because one of it's Kings couldn't get what he wanted so split with Rome...Some great reason for starting a church...I guess ya gotta justify it somehow...I had no idea there were fundie Anglicans...And yes dear, you will find a ton of unchurched fundies who do indeed deny the Trinity and insists Jesus is SON as they scream at me.

Why don't you go back the the 1890's or so and see the orginal fundamentalist movement? Your arrogance makes further comment silly. I don't waste much time on folks our church call "intellectually dead".

BBAS 64

22nd October 2007, 05:47 PM

I don't know what you think Augustine was saying but you're missing the point. He surely wasn't limiting the Church to only scripture. The very title of the section suggests the point (Catholic Doctrine). Doctrine more correctly referred to as Dogma is the result of what Augustine talks about in what you quoted. What you aren't getting is Catholics draw their reason for being not from the Bible but from Jesus Christ, who through his Church establishes truth. Thus the bible is not the sole repository of revelation, but indeed revelation continues and has done so since the beginning of time.

Good day, Spirit Meadow

Who is limiting the church??

That of course presumes your understanding of the church is the same as mine.....

I can read what he is saying, can you...

Where does find all matters that concern the Faith??

Augustine never uses the word Dogma, so it is unfair to treat him inside your mind set because he shows no hint of such a thing in his day.

New revelation contrinues today.... a bit Gnostic are ya?

But these things are off topic, still waiting for your sources on Luther the show your assertions. So if you could please post them, or admit they are in fact they have no basis in history.

In Him,

Bill

Albion

22nd October 2007, 06:45 PM

albion your Anglican? Gee i would have thought you were as near to Catholic as Catholic.

Sorry. I can't help you with your confusion without more information. I am a garden-variety Protestant Anglican whose faith is pretty well outlined in the 39 Articles.

Perhaps I'm confusing it with the English Anglican Church?

It's true that some people associate the word only with the Church of England, but many overseas churches which were planted by members of the CofE, in all the colonies for example, are normally called by the same term.

Ya know the one who left the Church because one of it's Kings couldn't get what he wanted so split with Rome...Some great reason for starting a church...I guess ya gotta justify it somehow.

I think it would be best to leave the history of the Church to those of us who know it. A garbled mess of misinformation like the above will only mislead others readers.

I had no idea there were fundie Anglicans.

Well, now you know.

And yes dear, you will find a ton of unchurched fundies who do indeed deny the Trinity and insists Jesus is SON as they scream at me.

If they deny the Trinity, they aren't Fundamentalists. Simple as that. But what makes you think they are actually Fundamentalists? Because they call themselves that or because you think every Bible-believer is a "fundie" and love to apply the term derisively to anyone who doesn't appeal to you?

Why don't you go back the the 1890's or so and see the orginal fundamentalist movement?

If your complaint is with people living in the 1890s, why didn't you say so? I had the idea that you had been in conversation with Fundamentalist Christians in our own times. Anyway, I have familiarity with the original. The principles have not changed over time. And if you want to search further, consult any reference work. You will find the Trinity included.

Your arrogance makes further comment silly. I don't waste much time on folks our church call "intellectually dead".

Suit yourself, but before you sign off for good, bear in mind that I didn't call your church "intellectually dead." Maybe you were just thinking there of the insult you directed at us--"uneducated."

IamRedeemed

5th November 2007, 01:40 PM

Why, out of the mouth of Jesus of course! Which when He said it was already written as He
referenced it from the book of Deuteronomy chapter 8. Most of the things Jesus said
were already written in the OT.

And He said (among other things)

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4

Anything "additional" that God says to His people in personal prayer, in prophesy or in sermon,
will ALWAYS align with Scripture and will NEVER oppose what is already written.

Maranatha27

9th November 2007, 01:10 AM

There is no place in the Bible where it says that the Bible alone is the final authority or that "scripture interprets scripture".

Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that anything that is not specifically mentioned word for word in the Bible is not the truth. But Sola Scriptura can't be found anywhere in the Bible. Therefore, it is self-defeating.
Duet 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev 22:[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
[20] He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Maranatha27

9th November 2007, 01:24 AM

DeaconDean

11th November 2007, 05:43 AM

I just love it when non-Catholics attempt to tell Catholics about how our Church operates.

And I just love it when Catholics come in here and defend their doctines and tradition and presume to tell Fundamentalists how to believe.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Philothei

11th November 2007, 05:52 AM

DeaconDean

11th November 2007, 06:10 AM

And I love it when the Protestants and Catholics tell the Orthodox....of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that they know both where the Church is and what the Bible talks about..... imagine that?

hewwww..... (all of this in one breath ...)

Philothei

I can answer that one quite simply:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." -Mt. 18:20 (KJV)

Why must you insist that the "church' is where God is at, whether it is the Orthodox, Catholic, or any protestant church?

Jesus is here, in the midst of this discussion. He is here, in this thread.

This is where the church is.

And I love it when the Protestants and Catholics tell the Orthodox....of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that they know both where the Church is and what the Bible talks about

And I love it when people come in and say they have an exclusive corner on God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Philothei

11th November 2007, 06:25 AM

And I love it when people come in and say they have an exclusive corner on God.

where did I say that? I did not say we know where the church is....I said that the Catholics do.... :doh:

And as far the church is where Christ is ... keeping Christ's commandments are the ones who are doing His will and preserve His Church. We are not exclusive it is Christ who set His church like that. And also Christ who said that "whoever drinks my blood and eats my flesh I am in him and he is in me" and he commanded us to do so. Also gave us other commandments to live by.

We do not have an "excusive corner" we are a faith that keeps according to Christ's commandments, and live by them. They are all based in the Bible. Only we do not pick and chose :scratch: the ones we like but accept them all as presented to us by the Lord himself and practiced by the very first apostolic community which BTW put the Gospel who you have today all in Hellenistic Greek. ;) That very first community would not by any chance have all the Truth in its tradition, the tradition of the Apostles?;)

God bless, :crosseo:
Philothei

DeaconDean

11th November 2007, 06:38 AM

Excuse me but:

I did not say we know where the church is....I said that the Catholics do....

Excuse me, but you also said:

Protestants and Catholics

You might not have but your obvious statement includes me, a Baptist, because I'm a Protestant.

now I am not going to get in a debate with you about "tradition and dogmas."

We do not have an "excusive corner" we are a faith that keeps according to Christ's commandments, and live by them. They are all based in the Bible. Only we do not pick and chose :scratch: the ones we like but accept them all as presented to us by the Lord himself and practiced by the very first apostolic community which BTW put the Gospel who you have today all in Hellenistic Greek. ;) That very first community would not by any chance have all the Truth in its tradition, the tradition of the Apostles?;)

And now your comparing me to the Hellenstic community of the first century.

A huh.

Are you aware that Peter and James ruled in Acts 15 that the "commandments, laws" that applied to Jews did not apply to Gentiles?

And are you accusing me of "pick and chose" which ones we believe?

That very first community would not by any chance have all the Truth in its tradition, the tradition of the Apostles?

Yea, right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

DeaconDean

11th November 2007, 06:51 AM

Since I'm the ememy here, I will post this and then butt out.

We can be fairly certain that "sola scriptura" was the rule of thumb in the first century and there shortly afterwards.

"The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to sola Scriptura

The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/martyr.html) and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.

The Early Church operated on basis of sola Scriptura

These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/alexandria.html): He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/clement.html) of Alexandria (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/alexandria.html) at the Catechetical school at Alexandria (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/alexandria.html). He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

What does the Bible (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html) teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html)"

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

I'm outta here!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Philothei

11th November 2007, 07:09 AM

they did commentary to the scriptures and the bishops of the times used their writtings plus scripture.... what does this tell you??? when you? when you use modern commentators of the Bible... are you using sola scriptura.?? haha...think NOT;) ;)

have a good night Deacon and God bless your ministry :bow: we are working for His Glory. Lord have mercy on me a sinner. Forgive me.:bow:

Philothei

DeaconDean

11th November 2007, 07:29 AM

they did commentary to the scriptures and the bishops of the times used their writtings plus scripture.... what does this tell you??? when you? when you use modern commentators of the Bible... are you using sola scriptura.?? haha...think NOT;) ;)

have a good night Deacon and God bless your ministry :bow: we are working for His Glory. Lord have mercy on me a sinner. Forgive me.:bow:

Philothei

you really should take the time to read:

noumV in Hellenism, p. 1032-1035, The Conflict Concerning the Law, 1. The primitive Community, p. 1065-1069, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Albion

11th November 2007, 12:56 PM

they did commentary to the scriptures and the bishops of the times used their writtings plus scripture.... what does this tell you??? when you? when you use modern commentators of the Bible... are you using sola scriptura.?? haha...think NOT

Wow. Is that an uninformed approach to the subject! Sola Scriptura has a meaning, yes. But you don't get to invent one for yourself.

SS means this: our ultimate and final authority is the revealed Word of God. He revealed all that is necessary for us to know as concerns our salvation. Nothing else (hence, the Sola) is to be added to that--no customs, human speculations, "tradition," etc. that originate in man rather than God.

If this is not to your liking, defend manmade insights. But when dealing with Sola Scriptura, inform youself of what the term means so that you are dealing with Sola Scriptura instead of some satire of it.

Finally, what of the idea that commentators are influential in our understanding the meaning of the Bible? This point is completely extraneous to the idea of Sola Scriptura since it still is Scripture and only Scripture that is in question. It is possible to misunderstand Scripture, you know, but that has nothing whatever to do with whether it is this--the Word of God--or something else that we are studying.

Philothei

11th November 2007, 04:07 PM

so what do you do with misstranslation? you ran to commentators? and you know who are those commentators? the fathers ... they interpreted the bible... and they also put it together see for yourself the council that put the canon of the Bible together... or these men were not God inspired? How can you even say that you are sola scriptura and you do not value the people who "edit" it for you and furthermore diserspect them? Okay now you "edit" this book ... and your commentaries on that Book are ....rubbish.... nice that makes lots of sense....sure. And do not bohter to quote our of context biblical verses. their purpose is not debate but words to live by....

Hope you have a nice day. Prayers. :)

God bless,
Philothei

Albion

11th November 2007, 08:30 PM

so what do you do with misstranslation? you ran to commentators? and you know who are those commentators?

It makes no difference to the rightness or wrongness of Sola Scriptura, however. That is what I was trying to explain. Sola Scriptura means just what it implies--this (Scripture) is where we turn for answers and it alone.

Of course there are interpreters. It's what they are interpreting that matters here. If it is the Bible, they can read it just the same as you can. If it is the dreams of some saint made into doctrine, that would be something quite different. It's all a matter of what we turn to, not how many people do or how smart they are.

Some are knowledgable and some are just freelance odtdballs, I suppose, and no one is expected to giving misinterpretations any credence at all.

IF, however, some come up with their ideas based on more than the Bible--with human commentary, legends, or customs, for example--they are doing what the principle of Sola Scriptura which we adhere to says is a mistake.

You can believe in Sola Scriptura and take no side, pro or con, about any particular interpreters.

the fathers ... they interpreted the bible... and they also put it together see for yourself the council that put the canon of the Bible together.

To the extent that the people you seem to be referring to (you didn't name any in particular) believed in the Bible as their only source of guidance, fine. They certainly did not agree among themselves, you know, so if you say you follow them and they are inspired, the obvious queston is "which interpretation did you accept?"

If, though, you took as definitive the non-Biblical personal opinions and speculations some of them did, then you would be mixing manmade theories in with God's instructions, which we would say is something to avoid. And these are certainly not the only theologians who know something about the Bible.

or these men were not God inspired?

We do not stipulate that they were necessarily correct in what they wrote or said, no. But to the extent that they show a consistency AND teach in accord with the Bible, there is no problem. The problem always comes in with putting manmade ideas on the par with God's revelation.

How can you even say that you are sola scriptura and you do not value the people who "edit" it for you and furthermore diserspect them?

Who said anything that amounts to disrespecting them? No one here, and certainly not me. To not believe them to be more than men does not mean that I disrespect them.

And as for "editing" the scriptures, what does this mean? Oh. They collected the books we call the Bible under one cover. That's good, but they didn't write any of the Bible, did they? So thanks to them, but we still have no reason to go beyond God's revealed word when seeking His guidance.

tz620q

6th December 2007, 03:29 PM

First, thank you for this definition of Sola Scriptura. It seems like you are the only one trying to substantively move this debate forward.

Albion,
SS means this: our ultimate and final authority is the revealed Word of God. He revealed all that is necessary for us to know as concerns our salvation. Nothing else (hence, the Sola) is to be added to that--no customs, human speculations, "tradition," etc. that originate in man rather than God.

I think that any constructive dialog must start with a common definition of the terminology used. So I will continue to use this definition as the valid one for Sola Scriptura and maybe we can see where we agree and where we differ.

My first question is that the phrase "Word of God" can be viewed in different ways. To you what does "Word of God" mean? My definition and I think this is affirmed in your definition above is that the Word of God is the totality of the things that God has revealed to mankind since the creation of the world. This is a philosophical and not a historical position based on the following premises.
1. God exists in both a supernatural and natural way.
2. God has revealed himself to the world in both supernatural and natural means.
3. Men within the church militant (Those here on earth.) normally only have access to God's natural means of revelation. Putting this in the negative assertion, man cannot gain supernatural revelation without the assistance of God.
4. God has chosen to reveal himself supernaturally at times in history, either to men (i.e. the decalogue) or through men (i.e. prophets).
5. God's fullest revelation came in the person of Jesus Christ.

I know this seems like a restating of the obvious, but I find it remarkable that people can start a journey in vastly different places and still hope to arrive together. So I, like you, have tried to define a starting point. If you agree with the premises above and can provide your own definition of "Word of God", I think we might actually be at a good kickoff point. God's blessings be with you

Philothei

6th December 2007, 05:47 PM

It makes no difference to the rightness or wrongness of Sola Scriptura, however. That is what I was trying to explain. Sola Scriptura means just what it implies--this (Scripture) is where we turn for answers and it alone.

Of course there are interpreters. It's what they are interpreting that matters here. If it is the Bible, they can read it just the same as you can. If it is the dreams of some saint made into doctrine, that would be something quite different. It's all a matter of what we turn to, not how many people do or how smart they are.

So.... the way to interpret the Bible is "free" choice to whatever the "spirit" tell us... then how come some are called Calvinists, and they follow the 5 point Calvinism or Lutheran and they follow that of Luther?

and secondly if you are non-denominational and someone believes that Christ is not God.... how and on what do you base the truth ?? If it is all "personal interpretation" then everything goes....even if someone "misstranslates" the Scripture he is still right....

Some are knowledgable and some are just freelance odtdballs, I suppose, and no one is expected to giving misinterpretations any credence at all.

But you have no standards on 'what is a misenterpretation' then how can you judge? impossible.

IF, however, some come up with their ideas based on more than the Bible--with human commentary, legends, or customs, for example--they are doing what the principle of Sola Scriptura which we adhere to says is a mistake.

But in the case of Calvin, Luther, Welesly, and many others how come you accept them??? it does not make any sense how you accept them but not the synods and the councils where the truth is manifested through the majority of the Christian expression... In the EO we have no Pope to regualate faith... all decisions were taken place by the guidance fo the holy spirit through the Fahters....

Also these decisions were the ones who radified the canon of the NT .... that was the community of the believers ...the Apostolic communion... If you look in the history you will see that the Assembly of the believers are the ones who put the Bible together and the Apostels did not came from the sky....they wrote the Gospels within that tradition... the Apostolic tradition.

You can believe in Sola Scriptura and take no side, pro or con, about any particular interpreters.

To the extent that the people you seem to be referring to (you didn't name any in particular) believed in the Bible as their only source of guidance, fine. They certainly did not agree among themselves, you know, so if you say you follow them and they are inspired, the obvious queston is "which interpretation did you accept?"

If, though, you took as definitive the non-Biblical personal opinions and speculations some of them did, then you would be mixing manmade theories in with God's instructions, which we would say is something to avoid. And these are certainly not the only theologians who know something about the Bible.

We do not stipulate that they were necessarily correct in what they wrote or said, no. But to the extent that they show a consistency AND teach in accord with the Bible, there is no problem. The problem always comes in with putting manmade ideas on the par with God's revelation.

But you, yourself do this anyways.... God talked to people He talked to the Prophets .... they were people too... why do you read them? and trust their opinions... You accept the "opinions" of the Apostles as word of God... I do not see the difference... and you are wrong the majority of the writtings of the Fathers agree... and the coucils are decisions of those consensus....

Who said anything that amounts to disrespecting them? No one here, and certainly not me. To not believe them to be more than men does not mean that I disrespect them.

And as for "editing" the scriptures, what does this mean? Oh. They collected the books we call the Bible under one cover. That's good, but they didn't write any of the Bible, did they? So thanks to them, but we still have no reason to go beyond God's revealed word when seeking His guidance.

Well, the fathers were the ones who were "disciples" under the Apostles.... You missintertpret the Bible again.... when the Bible talks about not "adding" anything to the Gospel it mean any new "revelation" like the Jehovah wittness or mormons did etc...It refers to the revelation already expressed in the Bible... the latest been St. John's the Evangelist with the revelation....

The Fathers writting are merely pointers to "stay on course " with the Gospel.... their writings are based on the Bible and the traditions of the worshiping community... just like their is Jewish commentaries on the Torah... the jews do not reject these writtings... why would we as Christians?

God bless,
Philothei

Albion

6th December 2007, 06:24 PM

First, thank you for this definition of Sola Scriptura. It seems like you are the only one trying to substantively move this debate forward.

I think that any constructive dialog must start with a common definition of the terminology used. So I will continue to use this definition as the valid one for Sola Scriptura and maybe we can see where we agree and where we differ.

Certainly. Glad to have your responses.

My first question is that the phrase "Word of God" can be viewed in different ways. To you what does "Word of God" mean? My definition and I think this is affirmed in your definition above is that the Word of God is the totality of the things that God has revealed to mankind since the creation of the world. This is a philosophical and not a historical position based on the following premises.
1. God exists in both a supernatural and natural way.
2. God has revealed himself to the world in both supernatural and natural means.
3. Men within the church militant (Those here on earth.) normally only have access to God's natural means of revelation. Putting this in the negative assertion, man cannot gain supernatural revelation without the assistance of God.
4. God has chosen to reveal himself supernaturally at times in history, either to men (i.e. the decalogue) or through men (i.e. prophets).
5. God's fullest revelation came in the person of Jesus Christ.'

I use the term, a very common one that is used by people all the way from the Pope to the local Protestant pastor, to mean the scriptures. I recognize that the term also can apply to the person of Christ himself, but I often use it to refer to the Bible since it asserts a critical point about how we view the books of the Bible.

I know this seems like a restating of the obvious, but I find it remarkable that people can start a journey in vastly different places and still hope to arrive together. So I, like you, have tried to define a starting point. If you agree with the premises above and can provide your own definition of "Word of God", I think we might actually be at a good kickoff point. God's blessings be with you

It looks like we do not agree, so I'll have to rely upon you to take that point of information and go with it to the next level, if you choose. I respect anyone who approaches a tough subject systematically, as you've set out to do, so this is not meant to be a brush-off but an invitation.

Albion

6th December 2007, 06:47 PM

It makes no difference to the rightness or wrongness of Sola Scriptura, however. That is what I was trying to explain. Sola Scriptura means just what it implies--this (Scripture) is where we turn for answers and it alone.

Of course there are interpreters. It's what they are interpreting that matters here. If it is the Bible, they can read it just the same as you can. If it is the dreams of some saint made into doctrine, that would be something quite different. It's all a matter of what we turn to, not how many people do or how smart they are.

So.... the way to interpret the Bible is "free" choice to whatever the "spirit" tell us.

No. I don't see how you arrived at that from what I wrote above.

then how come some are called Calvinists, and they follow the 5 point Calvinism or Lutheran and they follow that of Luther? and secondly if you are non-denominational and someone believes that Christ is not God.... how and on what do you base the truth ?? If it is all "personal interpretation" then everything goes....even if someone "misstranslates" the Scripture he is still right....

All that this seems to be saying is that different humans interpret the Bible differently. So what's remarkable about that. We all know this, don't we? The question of what is the right interpretation isn't affected by the number of or existence of wrong ones. I know that some people try to tell themselves that if there are a number of wrong interpretations, that this proves theirs to be right...but I can't follow that logic. Can you?

But you have no standards on 'what is a misenterpretation' then how can you judge? impossible.

How did we move so quickly and easily from "there are different interpretations" to it's impossible to judge?

Of course we can judge. EVERY CHRISTIAN AND EVERY CHRISTIAN CHURCH JUDGES. We merely have to use all the tools of language, history, and reason to decide.

If some come up with their ideas based on more than the Bible--with human commentary, legends, or customs, for example--they are doing what the principle of Sola Scriptura which we adhere to says is a mistake.

Calvin, Luther, Welesly, and many others how come you accept them???

What makes you think I do? As a matter of fact, there are substantial differences of understanding between these men you've chosen as your examples, so it would be impossible to 'accept them.'

it does not make any sense how you accept them but not the synods and the councils where the truth is manifested through the majority of the Christian expression.

As I just stated, it is you who assume for some reason unknown to me that I do accept 'them.' But I have to ask you why you would accept the gatherings of a bunch of bishops from a few countries any more readily than the thinking of anyone else with expertise in the Bible? I really have to ask this, and I don't mean it sarcastically.

.. In the EO we have no Pope to regualate faith... all decisions were taken place by the guidance fo the holy spirit through the Fahters....

You mean, I think, that you stipulate that they were guided by the HS.

you look in the history you will see that the Assembly of the believers are the ones who put the Bible together

Right. We all know this. And what they assembled under one cover as it were, is the infallible Word of God. Now, should we take as Gospel what the book assemblers say about these books...or what these books that they themselves considered to be the revealed word have to tell us?\

extent that the people you seem to be referring to (you didn't name any in particular) believed in the Bible as their only source of guidance, fine.

Of course I meant anyone who believes in the Bible as the ultimate guide. It doesn't refer to theologians of the past to the exclusion of the ordinary Christian today.

They certainly did not agree among themselves, you know, so if you say you follow them and they are inspired, the obvious queston is "which interpretation did you accept?"

That's the same argument, you know, that is used against the ECFs. They disagreed among themselves and yet are held up by churches such as yours as infallible. How so?

The problem always comes in with putting manmade ideas on the par with God's revelation.

But you, yourself do this anyways.... God talked to people He talked to the Prophets .... they were people too... why do you read them?

Because they are included in scripture. I certainly do not go with self-proclaimed prophets that we run into all the time these days.

You accept the "opinions" of the Apostles as word of God..

Again, because their teachings--which you call opinions--are part of revelation.

Well, the fathers were the ones who were "disciples" under the Apostles.... You missintertpret the Bible again.

I'm sorry, but the fathers are only commentators. There is some credence from a historical perspective we'd give them just as we view primary and secondary witnesses to any great events of history, but they are not endowed with any prophetic quality.

n the Bible talks about not "adding" anything to the Gospel it mean any new "revelation" like the Jehovah wittness or mormons did etc...It refers to the revelation already expressed in the Bible... the latest been St. John's the Evangelist with the revelation....

That's right. I don't think there's a disagreement here.

JohnChapter14

9th January 2008, 04:35 PM

LivingWordUnity

25th January 2008, 02:33 AM

Sola Scriptura means just what it implies--this (Scripture) is where we turn for answers and it alone.Then why isn't your reply always just a straight quote from the Bible without any words of your own added?

If you were to always try to strictly go by the "Bible Alone" doctrine, you would never do any explaining using anything other than quotes from the Bible.

Try explaining John chapter 6 using only the entire chapter of John chapter six without any commentary. :)

Albion

25th January 2008, 01:45 PM

Then why isn't your reply always just a straight quote from the Bible without any words of your own added?

Look, the game is cute, but it doesn't work.

There are dozens of words that refer to beliefs held by you--Immaculate Conception, Papacy, Magesterium, etc. which are not in the Bible.

Shall I ask you,
"Where in the Bible are these words? If they are not there, they are false beliefs!"

I don't care to do that, but I do field questions from folks such as yourself who seem to think that they've created the unaswerable question that will shake reformed Christianity to its roots.

Sola Scriptura does not claim to be mentioned in the Bible, so there is no profit or meaning to asking where in the Bible it is. But I'll explain it to you, if you really want to know what it means. It is a method of studying the Bible, just as you use Tradition to modify and expand upon the Bible...and it is not "in the Bible" either.

LivingWordUnity

26th January 2008, 03:32 AM

Look, the game is cute, but it doesn't work.

There are dozens of words that refer to beliefs held by you--Immaculate Conception, Papacy, Magesterium, etc. which are not in the Bible.

Shall I ask you,
"Where in the Bible are these words? If they are not there, they are false beliefs!"

I don't care to do that, but I do field questions from folks such as yourself who seem to think that they've created the unaswerable question that will shake reformed Christianity to its roots.

Sola Scriptura does not claim to be mentioned in the Bible, so there is no profit or meaning to asking where in the Bible it is. But I'll explain it to you, if you really want to know what it means. It is a method of studying the Bible, just as you use Tradition to modify and expand upon the Bible...and it is not "in the Bible" either.Even though there is biblical support for all Catholic doctrines either directly or indirectly, as a Catholic Christian, I am not limited to the Bible alone.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess. 2:15)

But as a Fundamentalist who claims to go by the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura), if you don't follow that doctrine by using the Bible alone for explaining the faith with no comments of your own added then you are not following the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura). :)

So you then have to ask yourself if your tradition is the same as the tradition of the early Church. To know this, one has to study the writings of the Early Church fathers. If one does this, one will realize that you can't walk ten feet in the early Church without running into Catholic doctrine.

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery [priests] as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

Albion

26th January 2008, 03:07 PM

Vambram

26th January 2008, 03:37 PM

But as a Fundamentalist who claims to go by the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura), if you don't follow that doctrine by using the Bible alone for explaining the faith with no comments of your own added then you are not following the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura).

This is simply and patently completely incorrect, and you know it. When the apostles preached Jesus, did they merely just quote relevant passages of scripture from the Old Testament? or, if and when people here today asks fundamentalists christians questions about Jesus, or the Gospel, or about anything else found in the Bible; I am sure that you don't believe that fundamentalists ought to merely just simply quote verses from the Bible.
Yeah, I know that you put a little smiley next to those words of yours. So I doubt that you were serious. Nevertheless, in your teasing sarcasm, you do appear to attempt to push Sola Scriptura into a box that simply does not apply nor fit.

Albion

26th January 2008, 04:27 PM

[/size][/font]

This is simply and patently completely incorrect, and you know it.

I agree with you there, but I also don't "get" where the "comments of your own added" comes from. From what I can see, there are no "comments of your own added" to Sola Scriptura or by those holding to Sola Scriptura.

I think that what this represents is simply a misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura IS as a concept. That's pretty common to critics from other faiths, I'm finding.

if and when people here today asks fundamentalists christians questions about Jesus, or the Gospel, or about anything else found in the Bible; I am sure that you don't believe that fundamentalists ought to merely just simply quote verses from the Bible.

Exactly. And if they did, it doesn't take away from Sola Scriptura in the least since their comments or opinions are still based solely upon Scripture, unlike Tradition-centered Christians who believe that there is divine revelation in something OTHER THAN Scripture. That's the point of Sola Scripture and has been so since Luther raised his objections to church customs, theological speculation, and so on being considered as definitive in setting our beliefs as the word of God itself.

LivingWordUnity

26th January 2008, 04:52 PM

As I said, there is no mention of Holy Tradition in the Bible. What you referred to concerned traditions, not Holy Tradition. The two are totally different concepts, which I know you'd point out to anyone who said that, for example, believing in the defining authority of customs, traditions, or traditional ways, is not what you mean by "Tradition."

Anyway, I asked you nothing about Tradition.

What you asked was about Sola Scriptura being "in the Bible," and that's what I was addressing.Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess. 2:15)

The part that is in bold is the Catholic teaching about what is oral Tradition. That's why I put that part in bold.

Besides, like I said, Catholics are not the ones who teach that it has to be the Bible alone. Your beliefs do teach this.

Therefore, the onus is on you to practice what you preach. Namely, to only reply with Bible quotes without using any words of your own. :)

Albion

26th January 2008, 05:26 PM

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
(2 Thess. 2:15)

The part that is in bold is the Catholic teaching about what is oral Tradition. That's why I put that part in bold.

That is not the Catholic teaching about what Tradition is. The idea of Tradition is much more than a reference to truth being transmitted by word of mouth. Tradition is not traditions, and an oral statement is not Tradition.

Tradition as used by Catholics is a system of determining divine truth by the consensus of opinion accepted as true within the church universal from the Apostles forward. At least, that is the theory. Merely telling what the Bible says by your lips is not that at all.

And as for the scripture passage cited, it merely tells us that (scriptural) truth was passed on in oral form in addition to the written method.

This changes nothing since what is transmitted is the issue, not the form of the transmission.

Therefore, the onus is on you to practice what you preach. Namely, to only reply with Bible quotes without using any words of your own. :)

If that were Sola Scriptura, the onus would be on me. But what you describe is NOT Sola Scriptura.

You do not understand Sola Scriptura.
It is a policy regarding the use and value of Scripture, an approach to the study of Scripture. It does not and never did suggest that we cannot preach the scripture message verbally, by carving it into stone, writing it in the air with skywriters, or any other such mode of communication. It means simply that we base our beliefs totally upon the Bible and not upon any other source of alleged divine revelation, such as "Holy Tradition."

LivingWordUnity

26th January 2008, 07:29 PM

That is not the Catholic teaching about what Tradition is. The idea of Tradition is much more than a reference to truth being transmitted by word of mouth. Tradition is not traditions, and an oral statement is not Tradition.I did not say that any oral statement is apostolic Tradition. Just as the Bible says, the truth as it was handed down by Jesus through the apostles, can either be passed down by written word or by oral tradition. But oral teaching came before written teaching.

There isn't anyplace in the Bible where Jesus tells the apostles to write down what He was telling them. The Bible only records Jesus telling the apostles to preach the gospel. And later the Church used the authority that had been given to her by Jesus to make the determination to write down what had first been apostolic oral teachings.

We capitalize the "T" when we mean an apostolic oral tradition that is an unchangeable truth of the faith. For example, The dogma of the Holy Trinity is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. But whether or not the liturgy should be spoken in Latin is tradition.

Tradition as used by Catholics is a system of determining divine truth by the consensus of opinion accepted as true within the church universal from the Apostles forward. At least, that is the theory. Merely telling what the Bible says by your lips is not that at all.The truth has nothing to do with popular opinion. Popular opinion is what crucified Jesus. If all the Bishops in the world disagree with the Pope about a matter of faith and morals, we Catholics are to go with what the Pope says about the matter because the Pope is the successor of Peter.

While all the other apostles were confused about who Jesus was, Peter was the only one who got it right because it was revealed to him alone by the Father in Heaven. And Jesus prayed specifically for Peter that after he turned back that his faith would not fail and tells Peter that his role will be to strengthen his brethren in the faith.

And as for the scripture passage cited, it merely tells us that (scriptural) truth was passed on in oral form in addition to the written method.This passage was not only about the past, it is Paul telling people how they are to accept the truth as it is to be passed down by the apostles, either by written statement (Scripture) or by word of mouth (Tradition). The New Testament canon had not been determined by the Catholic Church yet when Paul was writing this. In fact, Paul also said in another passage that he would rather talk face to face than to write to them. If Paul would have only been talking about scripture, he would have been telling people that they should only accept the Bible at their time which was the Old Testament.

So Bible alone at that time would have meant Old Testament alone.

This changes nothing since what is transmitted is the issue, not the form of the transmission.You are creating a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

If that were Sola Scriptura, the onus would be on me. But what you describe is NOT Sola Scriptura.So what you are saying is that Bible alone doesn’t mean Bible alone? :scratch:

Vambram

26th January 2008, 08:29 PM

Livingwordunity, your lack of correct understanding and your misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura is appalling.

LivingWordUnity

26th January 2008, 08:38 PM

Livingwordunity, your lack of correct understanding and your misinterpretation of Sola Scriptura is appalling.Does Bible alone mean Bible alone or not?

If Luther's doctrine of Bible alone doesn't actually mean Bible alone and the doctrine itself is not in the Bible, then it is hypocritical to demand that a Catholic answer the question, "Where's that in the Bible?".

Albion

26th January 2008, 10:46 PM

Does Bible alone mean Bible alone or not?

Yes.

It means that it ALONE is the determiner of doctrine.

If Luther's doctrine of Bible alone doesn't actually mean Bible alone

It does.

...and the doctrine itself is not in the Bible, then it is hypocritical to demand that a Catholic answer the question, "Where's that in the Bible?".

I disagree. There's nothing "hypocritical" about it. What I would agree to, however, is that to ask a Catholic "Where's that in the Bible" is as inappropriate a question as asking a Protestant "Where's Sola Scriptura in the Bible?"

Both questions misstate the belief system of the church(es) involved.

I do not ask you "Where's that in the Bible?" because I already know that your belief system incorporates many non-scriptural sources. That's why it's inappropriate to ask you that question. On the other hand, we reformed Christians indeed WERE asked, "Where's Sola Scriptura in the Bible?"

I hope that you now understand that this is equally inappropriate to ask us because it's as irrelevant to our theological perspectives as demanding that you, as a Catholic, base all you receive as doctrine upon the clear testimony of the Bible.

We may both continue to consider the other side's perspective to be wrong, but at the same time we should understand what it is if we are going to fight about it.

Albion

26th January 2008, 11:02 PM

Just as the Bible says, the truth as it was handed down by Jesus through the apostles, can either be passed down by written word or by oral tradition. But oral teaching came before written teaching.

That's demonstrably incorrect. The whole of the Old Testament--a majority of the Bible--was in use at the time that passage was spoken, and so were some of the books of the New Testament.
There isn't anyplace in the Bible where Jesus tells the apostles to write down what He was telling them.
It doesn't matter. They did write it and we all accept it as divinely inspired.
We capitalize the "T" when we mean an apostolic oral tradition that is an unchangeable truth of the faith.
No, you don't. Well, maybe you do, but your church does not. "Tradition" is the assumed consensus of the Church through all the world and all the ages on a doctrinal matter than is not explicit in Scripture.

Nonetheless, "Sacred Tradition" is a false concept that I'm not interested in debating further. My intention was to instruct you on the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

LivingWordUnity

27th January 2008, 12:24 AM

That's demonstrably incorrect. The whole of the Old Testament--a majority of the Bible--was in use at the time that passage was spoken, and so were some of the books of the New Testament.I did not deny the fact that the Old Testament already existed before the apostles. Why do you keep making arguments against things that I did not say?

Before the Old Testament was written down, it was preached. Before the gospel of the New Testament was written down, it was preached.
The New Testament didn’t start out with Jesus handing out gospel letters to the apostles. As soon as Jesus spoke the gospel to the apostles was when the gospels first existed. And that first existence of the gospels as it was handed to the apostles was therefore in oral teaching, not in written form. Therefore, oral teaching (the preaching) came before Written teaching.

It doesn't matter. They did write it and we all accept it as divinely inspired.I didn’t say that the written word of God was not inspired. Another argument against something that I didn’t say.

No, you don't. Well, maybe you do, but your church does not. "Tradition" is the assumed consensus of the Church through all the world and all the ages on a doctrinal matter than is not explicit in Scripture.The teaching of the Church throughout the ages is defined as the Magisterium which means either the Bishops in union with the Pope or the Pope acting alone. In either case, popular opinion is irrelevant.

My intention was to instruct you on the meaning of Sola Scriptura.But you still haven’t answered if Bible alone means Bible alone or not.

Vambram

27th January 2008, 01:58 AM

Does Bible alone mean Bible alone or not?

I don't know if you are being argumentative on purpose, or if you are having trouble understanding the answers to your question.

What Sola Scriptura means is that the Bible and the words in the Bible is what Christians ought to use to be the determiner of doctrine.

This has already been explained to you, so don't make Sola Scriptura more difficult to understand that what it really is, and please do not attempt to make Sola Scriptura mean something that it clearly is not.
Thank you.

LivingWordUnity

27th January 2008, 05:33 AM

I don't know if you are being argumentative on purpose, or if you are having trouble understanding the answers to your question.

What Sola Scriptura means is that the Bible and the words in the Bible is what Christians ought to use to be the determiner of doctrine.

This has already been explained to you, so don't make Sola Scriptura more difficult to understand that what it really is, and please do not attempt to make Sola Scriptura mean something that it clearly is not.
Thank you.Sola Scriptura is translated as "Bible alone". And this doctrine invented by Martin Luther in the 1500's directly contradicts what it says in the Bible. The Bible does not say that the Bible is the only source of doctrine.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says that it's the Church (not the Bible) that is the "pillar and foundation of truth". Jesus gave His authority primarily to Peter, not to a book. And the Pope is the successor to Peter.

Christians today accept the canon of the New Testament based on the authority that the Catholic Church had to infallibly determine which gospels and epistles were inspired and which ones were not inspired.

There are also good translations and bad ones, so someone has to have divine authority given by God to determine this infallibly or else no one could be totally sure if it's a good translation or a bad one.

Jesus gave us the Church, and then the Church gave us the Bible.

DeaconDean

27th January 2008, 05:50 AM

Sola Scriptura is translated as "Bible alone". And this doctrine invented by Martin Luther in the 1500's directly contradicts what it says in the Bible. The Bible does not say that the Bible is the only source of doctrine.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says that it's the Church (not the Bible) that is the "pillar and foundation of truth". Jesus gave His authority primarily to Peter, not to a book. And the Pope is the successor to Peter.

Christians today accept the canon of the New Testament based on the authority that the Catholic Church had to infallibly determine which gospels and epistles were inspired and which ones were not inspired.

There are also good translations and bad ones, so someone has to have divine authority given by God to determine this infallibly or else no one could be totally sure if it's a good translation or a bad one.

Jesus gave us the Church, and then the Church gave us the Bible.

Lets see here, fault #1, the church did not give us the Bible. The nicene council may have decided which books to include or exclude from the canon, but they certainly did not give us God's word.

And fact two:

the Church gave us the Bible

Had things stayed the way they were going, we ouwldn't still today, have any bible. The RCC did not want the Bible in the hands of the people, it was to stay in the hands of the hierarchy.

Fact three, the prophets of the OT spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them, and thererfore the words of the prophets came under the same influence as the NT writers, the Holy Spirit.

Fact three, Jesus said: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -Mt. 4:4

2 Tim 3:16 says:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God," quite literally, all scripture is God-Breathed.

And since all scripture is the actual word of God, then are we not told that we are to live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God?

Ergo, Scripture alone. Scripture literally being the word of God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Vambram

27th January 2008, 06:16 AM

Sola Scriptura is translated as "Bible alone". And this doctrine invented by Martin Luther in the 1500's directly contradicts what it says in the Bible. The Bible does not say that the Bible is the only source of doctrine.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says that it's the Church (not the Bible) that is the "pillar and foundation of truth". Jesus gave His authority primarily to Peter, not to a book. And the Pope is the successor to Peter.

Christians today accept the canon of the New Testament based on the authority that the Catholic Church had to infallibly determine which gospels and epistles were inspired and which ones were not inspired.

There are also good translations and bad ones, so someone has to have divine authority given by God to determine this infallibly or else no one could be totally sure if it's a good translation or a bad one.

Jesus gave us the Church, and then the Church gave us the Bible.

Allow me to add that not only do I completely agree with DeaconDean, but also I refuse to follow the dictates of the RCC and I also refuse to follow the incorrect doctrines of the RCC. There is so much that the RCC councils have believed and taught that this fundamentalist christian believes is outright heresy.
The Pope is NOT the successor of the Apostle Peter. Also, even in the early New Testament Church, the Apostle Peter was not considered by the other apostles and church leaders as THE ONE authoritative voice and teacher of doctrine. When Peter was wrong, the Apostle Paul called him out on that. The idea of papal succession coming from Peter to the Popes is not found in the Bible, and this fundamentalist Christian here refuses to allow the RCC and the Pope to be my spiritual leader. As the Bible says, there is one mediator between God and man, and that Mediator is the Lord Jesus Christ. As Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit Who teaches and leads and guides the born-again believers. What need do I have for the RCC and the Pope?
The answer is:: None.

LivingWordUnity

27th January 2008, 07:15 AM

Lets see here, fault #1, the church did not give us the Bible. The nicene council may have decided which books to include or exclude from the canon, but they certainly did not give us God's word.I never said that the Church came before God if that’s what you are implying. Another argument against what I didn’t say.The RCC did not want the Bible in the hands of the people, it was to stay in the hands of the hierarchy.That argument is based on a myth which was begun by the Protestant reformers who took advantage of the newly invented printing press to wage a propaganda war in an attempt to vilify the Catholic Church. This was the largest and most effective propaganda campaign that the world had ever seen up to that time in history.

The period of history that you are referring to is the time before the invention of the printing press. By the time Protestants came around (1500 years after the apostles), the printing press had been invented. But the Catholic Church was the first to translate a Bible into the vernacular. And the Douay Rheims Old English Catholic bible was published before the first King James Bible.

Bibles were rare at the time because before the invention of the printing press, each Bible had to be manually transcribed by hand by monks. This naturally meant that the rate of production of Bibles was extremely low.

The fact is that any book before the invention of the printing press would have been very rare and very expensive. So people were fortunate if they had only one Bible in the building to read for Mass. They would lock it up to make sure that it did not get stolen.

Another very important thing to remember is that even if Bibles would have been plentiful, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate and would not have been able to read the book.Fact three, the prophets of the OT spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them, and therefore the words of the prophets came under the same influence as the NT writers, the Holy Spirit.I don’t deny that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God and that the New Testament has the same God.

But Catholics don’t believe that anyone who wants to be a prophet is one. Only certain people were called by God to be prophets, and Moses gave a special role to one man, Moses, to lead the people.

The Pope’s role in being the visible leader for the people of God is no different than when God put Moses in that same role. What would have happened if people in the time of Moses would have decided not to follow Moses because they wanted to go directly to God and not have to submit to the authority of a man?

And by the way, Moses also had successors who sat in “the seat of Moses”. This sounds a lot like Peter, and his successors who sit in “the chair of Peter.” :)

Fact three, Jesus said: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -Mt. 4:4

2 Tim 3:16 says:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God," quite literally, all scripture is God-Breathed.The Catholic Church agrees with those Bible verses just as the Church agrees with all Bible verses.And since all scripture is the actual word of God, then are we not told that we are to live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God?Yes, the Catholic Church agrees with that.Ergo, Scripture alone.No. The Bible doesn’t say that divine truth is limited to the written word. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite of that.

John 20:30
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book”

John 21:25
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

There is a big difference between saying that Sacred Scripture is the word of God and saying that it’s the only way that God transmits His word to us. The Bible says that it’s not just transmitted by written word but also orally (what we Catholics call Sacred Tradition).

2 Thess. 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

In the Bible, you won't find the word "only" or "alone" next to the word "scripture".

DeaconDean

27th January 2008, 07:37 AM

As you have your convictions, I have mine.

And thank God I have the Holy Spirit in me that leads me to all truth, and that i don't have to have it directed to me by some man.

The premise is simple, the scriptures are the revealed word of God, and Jesus told us to live by every word that proceeds from the moth of God.

Since Jesus is no longer with us, since God does not often speak from heaven in a voice that all can hear, I have God's word, the holy Bible, and the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Not some man.

God Bless

Till all are one.

LivingWordUnity

27th January 2008, 07:39 AM

The Pope is NOT the successor of the Apostle Peter.It is an historically proven fact that the Pope is the successor of Peter. There is an unbroken succession of Popes that goes directly down from Peter to our present day Pope.

LivingWordUnity

27th January 2008, 07:42 AM

And thank God I have the Holy Spirit in me that leads me to all truth, and that i don't have to have it directed to me by some man.Do you realize that you are making the claim of infallibility? I don't make that claim about myself.Since Jesus is no longer with us, since God does not often speak from heaven in a voice that all can hear, I have God's word, the holy Bible, and the Holy Spirit to guide me.But God does still speak to us with a voice that we can hear, and He does it through the Pope when the Pope is teaching in matters of faith and morals and through all priests in the Sacrament of Reconciliation when Jesus says through the priest, "Your sins are forgiven, now go in peace".

Like I said, the role that the Pope has today is the same role that Moses had in the Old Testament. God didn't change the way He does things because God does not change.

Albion

27th January 2008, 12:24 PM

It is an historically proven fact that the Pope is the successor of Peter. There is an unbroken succession of Popes that goes directly down from Peter to our present day Pope.

The currrent bishop of Rome is probably the successor to Peter as bishop of Rome.

What is NOT historically accurate is to say that there is an unbroken succession of Popes from Peter forward. The position was not in existence during the first several centuries of Christian history, and none of the bishops of Rome during that period can be shown to even have contemplated such a position as "pope."

This is probably what he was referring to.

Albion

27th January 2008, 12:36 PM

But you still haven’t answered if Bible alone means Bible alone or not.

Yes, I did. Several times.

If you don't understand this very straightforward concept when it's been explained carefully, I don't know what will help you. Perhaps if you actually referred to what I explained, and then asked me about what in that which I explained you don't "get"???

How about that?

Simply repeating the same question after I've answered it several times--and others have done so as well--strikes me as inexplicable since everyone else I've explained Sola Scriptura to has been able to follow along.

Albion

27th January 2008, 12:46 PM

Like I said, the role that the Pope has today is the same role that Moses had in the Old Testament.

You're testifying, not debating, with those unsupported claims. We might just as well be hearing from a Mormon saying, with all due conviction, that there really were Golden Plates in New York or a Baptist saying that his church has Apostolic Succession because there have been Baptistic communities existing all through the history of the Church. Without factual support, this kind of thing is nothing but an explanation of what the speaker believes.

Hentenza

27th January 2008, 02:37 PM

[quote=LivingWordUnity;43018722]Do you realize that you are making the claim of infallibility? I don't make that claim about myself.But God does still speak to us with a voice that we can hear, and He does it through the Pope when the Pope is teaching in matters of faith and morals and through all priests in the Sacrament of Reconciliation when Jesus says through the priest, "Your sins are forgiven, now go in peace".

Do you realize that you do make the claim of infallibility when you argue that the RCC has it right? You chose the RCC because You agree with their doctrine.
BTW- The pope is no more infallible than any other human. There is no biblical evidence for the pope, only the RCC's interpretation that there is.

Like I said, the role that the Pope has today is the same role that Moses had in the Old Testament. God didn't change the way He does things because God does not change.Have you studied Typology at all? Show me where in the NT is the pope typed as Moses? What you are calling a type is actually an illustration which is open to your interpretation. Again, no biblical evidence exists to support your point.

LivingWordUnity

29th January 2008, 02:49 AM

Do you realize that you do make the claim of infallibility when you argue that the RCC has it right? You chose the RCC because You agree with their doctrine.I didn't base my decision to be Catholic on personal preference of doctrines and morality. That is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. If a Protestant doesn't agree with something being taught in their current denomination, all they have to do is go to the one down the street that will agree with them. Or they can start their own and even name it after themselves. This was what Protestantism did to Christianity.

I made my decision to be in the Catholic Church before knowing all that the Catholic Church taught for the simple reason that it's the one Church that was founded by Christ Himself 2,000 years ago. This is easily proven with history, and no one else (except Eastern Orthodox) can make this claim and be taken seriously.

Even though people give all kinds of excuses for leaving the Church, people who leave the Catholic Church leave because some of the teachings are hard to accept. But a lot of people left Jesus for the same reason. (see John, chapter 6)

BTW- The pope is no more infallible than any other human. There is no biblical evidence for the pope, only the RCC's interpretation that there is. You are basing that conclusion on your personal interpretation of scripture, but it says in the Bible that scripture is not up to personal interpretation. I could choose to listen to your modern personal opinion or the constant teaching of the Church which goes back 2,000 years.

When the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible, that’s not saying that he is impeccable. The Pope can sin, but he is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching heresy. Peter was the first example of this.

If Jesus would not have given us a Pope, there would be no way for anyone to know for sure how to interpret scripture. In Protestantism, there is no authority to say that someone is teaching heresy. It’s only someone’s opinion over the opinion of someone else. So every doctrine in Protestantism will forever be up for debate, and Jesus never put His teachings up for a vote.

But it’s ironic how Protestants can accept some decisions that the Catholic Church has made in history as infallible (i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity and the canon of the New Testament) and other decisions as in error. Either the Catholic Church is always infallible or it isn’t infallible at all. If you don’t trust the Catholic Church how can you trust the New Testament canon which was determined by the Catholic Church?

Have you studied Typology at all? Show me where in the NT is the pope typed as Moses? What you are calling a type is actually an illustration which is open to your interpretation. Again, no biblical evidence exists to support your point.Yes, I have studied Typology, and I know that Moses was a type for Christ. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things about Moses that can be compared to Peter.

The main reason why Protestants object to the Pope is because they say that the Pope is “just a man” and that God wouldn’t give authority to one man to lead all of His people. But the example of Moses proves this argument to be wrong. The example of Moses shows us that God would choose one man to lead all of His people, even a man who was capable of committing a sin.

But even though Moses was not God but one man, if someone went against Moses, God saw it the same as going against God. This was because God had given Moses all of His authority to teach and lead the people of Israel. This is the same way that we see the Pope, as the number one representative of Christ. And Christ is God in the flesh.

Protestants see God as more of a micro manager who has to do everything himself, but everywhere in scripture we see God delegating His authority to men or to angels.

I think that problem that Protestants have with the Pope is more about being too proud to believe that God could put someone other than one’s self in such a position and not wanting to submit to an authority outside of one’s own personal preference and intellect.

Vambram

29th January 2008, 02:54 AM

LivingWordUnity

29th January 2008, 03:21 AM

*chuckles*
This almost makes me want to laugh, because, although you claim that the RCC was founded by Christ 2000 years ago, any casual student of history and all serious teachers of history know that the RCC was not founded until well into the third and fourth centuries.Let me guess, you are referring to Emperor Constantine and the Edit of Milan in 313AD. Jack Chick played a big part in promoting the lie that the Catholic Church didn't exist until being founded by Emperor Constantine with his comic book styled cartoon "Chick tracts".

There were 32 Popes before 313AD, so the Catholic Church could not have started on this date.

Here is a list of the early Popes of the Catholic Church and the dates beginning with the apostle Peter and going up through the time of Emperor Constantine. I will put in bold the Popes who were Pope during the life span of Emperor Constantine:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52) New Advent Encyclopedia List of Popes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)

Please take note of the historical fact that Emperor Constantine was not a Pope and was not even a Catholic until just before his death when he was Baptized into the Catholic Church on his death bed.

Constantine the Great (BORN between 274-288, DIED 337)
"The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288." - New Advent Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm)

"When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism." - New Advent Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm)

The Eastern Orthodox churches can also trace their history to the apostles, except that they trace their apostolic line to Peter's brother, Andrew.

May God bless you,
Steve

DeaconDean

29th January 2008, 03:23 AM

The main reason why Protestants object to the Pope is because they say that the Pope is “just a man” and that God wouldn’t give authority to one man to lead all of His people. But the example of Moses proves this argument to be wrong. The example of Moses shows us that God would choose one man to lead all of His people, even a man who was capable of committing a sin.

Again, failure to study.

Moses may have been chosen to led Israel out of Egypt and to the Promised Land, but Moses was led himself, and furthermore, Moses had to have somebody else interceed for him.

Was Moses the high priest?

No. That fell on Aaron and his sons. And in fact, the bible also teaches that moses had to have Aaron scrifice for him.

Who was it that went to Pharaoh? Was it Moses alone? or was it Moses and Aaron?

When Moses commanded the staff to be turned nto a snake, who took it cast on the floor and it became a snake? Was it Moses? Or was it Aaron?

Every time Moses went to the Pharaoh, did he go alone?

After the Exodus, who was called on to help explain the manna and the quail?

Who were the individuals who held up Moses hands while Joshua fought the Amalekites?

Who eat bread with Jethro in the presence of God?

But even though Moses was not God but one man, if someone went against Moses, God saw it the same as going against God. This was because God had given Moses all of His authority to teach and lead the people of Israel. This is the same way that we see the Pope, as the number one representative of Christ. And Christ is God in the flesh.

In Lev. 10:6-7, Aaron and his sons were told not to participate in the community morning, yet two verses later, when Aarons two remaining sons mess up the sacrifice, Moses rebukes them. Who come to their rescue asking for clairification of certain polices, and because Moses did not have an immediate answer, they were spared?

I made my decision to be in the Catholic Church before knowing all that the Catholic Church taught for the simple reason that it's the one Church that was founded by Christ Himself 2,000 years ago. This is easily proven with history, and no one else (except Eastern Orthodox) can make this claim and be taken seriously.

Well then, oh wise one, tell me who founded the church in Jerusalem? (cf. Acts 8:1)

It wasn't Peter.

Peter wasn't even the "head" of it. (cf. Acts 15:13)

God Bless

Till all are one.

LivingWordUnity

29th January 2008, 04:21 AM

Who was it that went to Pharaoh? Was it Moses alone? or was it Moses and Aaron?God provided Aaron as a helper to Moses. Moses was still the number one man in charge. The Pope has many people assisting him, too.Well then, oh wise one, tell me who founded the church in Jerusalem? (cf. Acts 8:1)

It wasn't Peter.

Peter wasn't even the "head" of it. (cf. Acts 15:13)I never said that Peter founded the Catholic Church. Jesus founded the Catholic Church with Peter as “the first of the apostles”. Peter was told that he was to shepherd Jesus’ flock. Jesus’ flock includes all Christians which includes you and me. Since Peter is not living in our day, his successor, the Pope, is the one who is shepherding today's Christians in his place.

The Church began in Jerusalem, but it spread to the rest of the world and made its headquarters in Rome.

Acts 23:11
The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.”

“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, in the year 110 A.D.

DeaconDean

29th January 2008, 04:35 AM

God provided Aaron as a helper to Moses. Moses was still the number one man in charge. The Pope has many people assisting him, too.I never said that Peter founded the Catholic Church. Jesus founded the Catholic Church with Peter as “the first of the apostles”. Peter was told that he was to shepherd Jesus’ flock. Jesus’ flock includes all Christians which includes you and me. Since Peter is not living in our day, his successor, the Pope, is the one who is shepherding us in his place.

The Church began in Jerusalem, but it spread to the rest of the world and made its headquarters in Rome.

Acts 23:11
The following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome.”

Even you early church fathers testified to the principle of sola scriptura:

From the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what we know as the Apostolic Fathers we find an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. With the writings of the Apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras in the early to mid second century we find the same thing. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation...Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teaching of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both fathers give us the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the Churches and every doctrine is derived from Scripture. There is no doctrine in this Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. And there is no appeal in the writings of these fathers to a Tradition that is oral in nature for a defense of what they call Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition for Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally their teaching was later committed to writing in the Scriptures and the Scriptures have since that day become the pillar and ground of our faith. His exact statement is as follows: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" (Alexander Roberts & W.H. Rambaugh Translators, The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874), 3.1.1)...

Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer affirms this fact:For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is (Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144).
The bible was the ultimate authority for the fathers of the patristic age. It was materially sufficient and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth...
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46)...That the fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures...
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)...

But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts (Ibid., Lecture 5.12)...The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture ALONE. It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these catechumens, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone. This principle is also enunciated by Gregory of Nyssa:The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).

Basil the Great, the bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow:Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).
These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived