Mary Mother of Jesus, not of God.

[prodromos]

By the way, I believe that both Peter and Paul did value the authority of Holy Scripture, but never said anything about "Tradition" (the alternative favored by certain churches) being the equal of God's word.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[Albion]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

traditions =/= the theory called "Holy Tradition" by the church.

 

[prodromos]

traditions =/= the theory called "Holy Tradition" by the church.

You didn't ask about Holy Tradition. No moving of goalposts.

 

[Albion]

You didn't ask about Holy Tradition. No moving of goalposts.

?? You didn't answer a post that referred to "Tradition" AKA "Holy Tradition" or "Sacred Tradition" by trying to say it was the same as ordinary traditions???

I believe that you did.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught...."

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sorry, no. The following will help straighten that out:

What is prima scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

Prima--as the word suggests--holds that Scripture is the first authority among a number of others. Prima, first.

I never said that this is what Sola Scriptura says or is all about, and (more importantly) it's not.

Sola Scriptura means that it is the only one that is definitive.

In addition to the definitions given in the above link, note this application of the principle called Prima Scriptura--

"Early Catholicism developed a belief in prima scriptura. The Catholic Church used its government-sanctioned monopoly on biblical translation, interpretation, and doctrinal formation to advance the idea that, in addition to the Bible, church leaders and tradition were also authoritative sources of divine revelation."

What's more, the policy described above was, and is, made to seem more legitimate by the church referring to Scripture as being PART OF so-called Holy Tradition! This makes the traditions described in the paragraph above be of first importance or primary authority!

So if, as your link suggests, the scriptures are the ONLY source of divine inspiration, then how did they come to be in the first place? It was divine inspiration that brought us the scriptures not the other way around. So then the scriptures absolutely cannot be the ONLY source of divine revelation, furthermore the scriptures give numerous accounts of divine inspiration thru prophets all the way from Genesis to Revelation. The authors of the scriptures were prophets, they didn’t read the scriptures to receive divine revelation they received divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures. So the person who wrote that definition is wrong.

 

[hedrick]

Please read this letter written from Cyril to Nestorius and tell me if there is anything you disagree with on the definition Cyril gives for the word Theostokos.

To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another’s money, and had always laboured under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with. I take little reckoning of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the smirching of the wicked, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands, proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and irreprehensible teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again.

We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expression “with the Word” should suggest to the mind the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him, but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who was properly man was honoured with the appellation of Son, and that he who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the reality of Sonship.

We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This expression, however, “the Word was made flesh,” can mean nothing else but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers; therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the flesh.

These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ, beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God. Send greetings to the brothers who are with you.

Those who are with me send greetings in Christ.

The disadvantage of this statement is that it denies the existence of Jesus. This is a danger for the whole orthodox tradition, but I think Aquinas does a better job,

 

[BNR32FAN]

The disadvantage of this statement is that it denies the existence of Jesus. This is a danger for the whole orthodox tradition, but I think Aquinas does a better job,

Which statement exactly?

 

[Albion]

So if, as your link suggests, the scriptures are the ONLY source of divine inspiration, then how did they come to be in the first place?

The Old Testament states that the writers wrote as they were inspired by God himself. And it was the church acting in council that later compiled the OT and NT into what we call The Bible.

The decision that was reached in the 4th century is generally believed to have been guided by God, but the choice of books was almost entirely in accord with what the various parishes and dioceses of the church had long decided on their own. Only several of the 66 books were in question when those councils addressed the matter.

It was divine inspiration that brought us the scriptures not the other way around.

So we agree there.

So then the scriptures absolutely cannot be the ONLY source of divine revelation,

But that is not what Sola Scriptura says (and it's getting tiresome having to point this out so often), nor is it what the link I gave you states when giving its explanation of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura deals with doctrine and the doctrine that is essential for salvation, that which churches impose upon their members. It does not "say" that God "inspired" nobody and no one in any other way at any time or that there is no knowledge that can be known without reference to the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But that is not what Sola Scriptura says (and it's getting tiresome having to point this out so often), nor is it what the link I gave you states when giving its explanation of Sola Scriptura.

Here’s a direct quote from the link you provided.

Prima scriptura teaches that Scripture is merely “first” among other sources of divine revelation. In contrast, sola scriptura teaches that Scripture is the “only” source of divine revelation.

 

[Albion]

Here’s a direct quote from the link you provided.

Prima scriptura teaches that Scripture is merely “first” among other sources of divine revelation. In contrast, sola scriptura teaches that Scripture is the “only” source of divine revelation.

That simplified description was taken from the introduction to Prima Scriptura.

Here is the direct quote from that link I provided which addressed Sola Scriptura specifically:

"Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

 

[BNR32FAN]

That simplified explanation was from the introduction to the topic, when Prima Scriptura was the main topic.

Here is the direct quote from that link I provided which addressed Sola Scriptura specifically:

"Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

Yeah what do you think “scripture alone” means? It means only scripture. It’s right there in your first statement. You keep trying to say that scripture alone does not mean scripture only which is exactly what it means. Even the link you provided explained that.

 

[Albion]

Yeah what do you think “scripture alone” means? It means only scripture.

Okay. People redefine the term to make it into whatever they want, but the correct meaning has been given here, repeated, paraphrased, summarized, and elaborated upon in different ways.

There isn't much more that can be done when advocates of tradition or some other manmade alternative to Scripture are determined to stay with their own definitions come what may.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay. People redefine the term to make it into whatever they want, but the correct meaning has been given here, repeated, paraphrased, summarized, and elaborated upon in different ways.

There isn't much more that can be done when advocates of tradition or some other manmade alternative to Scripture are determined to stay with their own definitions come what may.

Sola scriptura means scripture alone aka scripture only, your the one redefining it not me. Even your own source explicitly stated it and your still refusing to accept it.

 

[Albion]

Sola scriptura means scripture alone aka scripture only, .

It means Scripture Alone but you have to understand what is meant by that. And you don't want to do so.

Your reply reminds me of the way that some non-Protestants dissect the term Sola Fide. Oh, they say, "that says Faith Alone, so it MUST mean that we aren't expected to do any good works: they're are unnecessary and possibly even wrong to do because we've got Faith!"

So, they ignore the context when it comes to Sola Fide and give the same retort that you give with regard to Sola Scriptura.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It means Scripture Alone but you have to understand what is meant by that. And you don't want to do so.

Your reply reminds me of the way that some non-Protestants dissect the term Sola Fide. Oh, they say, "that says Faith Alone, so it MUST mean that we aren't expected to do any good works: they're are unnecessary and possibly even wrong to do because we've got Faith!"

So, they ignore the context when it comes to Sola Fide and give the same retort that you give with regard to Sola Scriptura.

There are many Protestants that do give that exact definition of Sola Fide and I’m sure you’ve seen that here on CF several times.

So let’s examine your definition another way. Here’s your definition.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

So what about the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit play any role in the faith and practice of the Christian? Or what about the Church, does it play any role in the faith and practice of the Christian?

 

[Albion]

There are many Protestants that do give that exact definition of Sola Fide and I’m sure you’ve seen that here on CF several times.

Do you agree with them then? It says Faith "Alone," so Faith must be totally alone in all respects, right??

If not, then you might begin to appreciate where you've gone wrong concerning the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

So what about the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit play any role in the faith and practice of the Christian? Or what about the Church, does it play any role in the faith and practice of the Christian?

Neither of those compromises the meaning of or value of Sola Scriptura.

The Holy Spirit guides the church along with individual believers and keeps them from going off the rails. And the institutional churches of course carry out the responsibilities set before them--administering the sacraments, resolving disagreements, spreading the Gospel, and instructing the faithful, to name a few.

In both cases, what they "do" is in accord with the Bible, not in defiance of it or in conjunction with some other so-called authority of equal value.

We know what the Holy Spirit's role is and why it is such...because of Scripture. And if we turn then to the Church which you asked about, everything I listed above (and much more) is straight from the New Testament.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you agree with them then? It says Faith "Alone," so Faith must be totally alone in all respects, right??

If not, then you might begin to appreciate where you've gone wrong concerning the meaning of Sola Scriptura.


Neither of those compromises the meaning of or value of Sola Scriptura.

The Holy Spirit guides the church along with individual believers and keeps them from going off the rails. And the institutional churches of course carry out the responsibilities set before them--administering the sacraments, resolving disagreements, spreading the Gospel, and instructing the faithful, to name a few.

In both cases, what they "do" is in accord with the Bible, not in defiance of it or in conjunction with some other so-called authority of equal value.

We know what the Holy Spirit's role is and why it is such...because of Scripture. And if we turn then to the Church which you asked about, everything I listed above (and much more) is straight from the New Testament.

So then we can’t rightly say that the scriptures ALONE are authoritative for the faith and practices of the Christian since the Holy Spirit and the Church are also authoritative for their faith and practices.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you agree with them then? It says Faith "Alone," so Faith must be totally alone in all respects, right??

If not, then you might begin to appreciate where you've gone wrong concerning the meaning of Sola Scriptura.


Neither of those compromises the meaning of or value of Sola Scriptura.

The Holy Spirit guides the church along with individual believers and keeps them from going off the rails. And the institutional churches of course carry out the responsibilities set before them--administering the sacraments, resolving disagreements, spreading the Gospel, and instructing the faithful, to name a few.

In both cases, what they "do" is in accord with the Bible, not in defiance of it or in conjunction with some other so-called authority of equal value.

We know what the Holy Spirit's role is and why it is such...because of Scripture. And if we turn then to the Church which you asked about, everything I listed above (and much more) is straight from the New Testament.

How did I know right from wrong before I read the scriptures?

 

[Albion]

How did I know right from wrong before I read the scriptures?

You most likely were affected by people around you who were conversant with and influenced by the Scriptures.

So then we can’t rightly say that the scriptures ALONE are authoritative for the faith and practices of the Christian since the Holy Spirit and the Church are also authoritative for their faith and practices.

I'd have to say that this ^ is indicative of you having misunderstood what was explained in that post.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You most likely were affected by people around you who were conversant with and influenced by the Scriptures.

I agree, it’s called the Church, but I was also compelled by an inner sense of right & wrong as well. I knew right from wrong when I was 4 years old. I didn’t read the scriptures until I was 38. So evidently the scriptures are not the ONLY authoritative source for faith and practices of Christians. The Holy Spirit gave us the scriptures thru the church. Even the original authors were the Church.