Budge

[pyranima]

Lets hit your AntiCatholic/AntiOrthodox question strait on the head.

Where does the bible come from? how do you know what books belong in the bible? does the bible teach sola Scriptora?

[Budge]

Before we get started, I need you to define what you think Sola Scripture means...

[pyranima]

[quote name='Budge' post='1038693' date='Aug 6 2006, 02:38 PM']
Before we get started, I need you to define what you think Sola Scripture means...
[/quote]


I believe in letting people hang themselves with their own rope. so i will allow you to define Sola Scriptora as you see fit. unless you correct me i will assume that you go by the standard Def. of Sola Scriptora of "The bible alone" as in if its not in the bible its not true.

Also are you a KJV only if so we will need to address that first because KJVO hold the KJV as inspired.

[DAF]

Do'nt mean to cut in, but it's 'sola scriptUra'

continue.

[pyranima]

[quote name='DAF' post='1038709' date='Aug 6 2006, 03:27 PM']
Do'nt mean to cut in, but it's 'sola scriptUra'

continue.
[/quote]
yes cant spell. sorry. havent slept much which makes my dyslexia worse.

[Budge]

[quote]

i will assume that you go by the standard Def. of Sola Scriptora of "The bible alone" [[u]b]as in if its not in the bible its not true.[/b][/u][/quote]

Already I see you have the definition off....

Roman Catholics love to claim that the doctrine of Sola Scrip-tura contradicts itself. That is if the doctrine is true, then they reason that it ought to be stated in Scrip-ture. The problem stems from RCs mis-interpreting what Sola Scripture means.

[b]
The RCs definition goes something like this:


Sola Scrip-tura means that all true propositions are stated in the Bible. Since Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in Bible, it then follows that Sola Scrip-tura is not a true proposition.
[/b]


. . . but that's a caricature of what is meant by Sola Scrip-tura. The corrrect definition of Sola Scrip-tura is that all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible. Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scrip-tura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

Catholics and Christians both agree that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Catholics add to this their sacred deposit of Oral Traditions and their Teaching Magesterium as the other two legs of the Revelation of God.
[b]
Catholics believe things that are NOT at all even mentioned in the Bible like the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a priesthood (celibate no less), transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary and the promotions of Mary.[/b]

The only one of authority that can be trusted is the written Word. ECFs disagree with each other, oral tradition is just another term for continuing revelation, magisterium is just another circular invention.

Jesus Christ could have made a declaration by Himself (being God) but He referred the Pharisees and even the Devil to Scrip-ture.
[b]
The Bereans knew that the Bible is where doctrines are tested, nothing has changed.[/b]

Edited August 7, 2006 by Budge

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Budge' post='1038783' date='Aug 6 2006, 07:16 PM']
The only one of authority that can be trusted is the written Word. ECFs disagree with each other, oral tradition is just another term for continuing revelation, magisterium is just another circular invention.
[/quote]
The ECFs did disagree on some things, but the Church only recognizes their theology as infallible on issues where they are in agreement. Tradition is not new revelation, but a passing on of the teachings of the Apostles. The Bible simply does not exist without Tradition and the Magisterium. If did not come into existence on its own - it was canonized by an authoritative Magisterium. If that Magisterium is not authoritative, neither is the Bible. I could make a selection of my own favorite books and canonize them as God's Word if I wished, but I have no authority to do so. God bless!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1038783' date='Aug 6 2006, 05:16 PM']
Already I see you have the definition off....

Roman Catholics love to claim that the doctrine of Sola Scrip-tura contradicts itself. That is if the doctrine is true, then they reason that it ought to be stated in Scrip-ture. The problem stems from RCs mis-interpreting what Sola Scripture means.

[b]
The RCs definition goes something like this:
Sola Scrip-tura means that all true propositions are stated in the Bible. Since Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in Bible, it then follows that Sola Scrip-tura is not a true proposition.
[/b][/quote]
Thank you, Budge, for providing us with "the RC's" definition of Sola Scip-tura (what's with the dash in "Scip-tura" anyway?) See, as a Catholic, I'd never heard this definition of Sola Scriptura. Who's this "RC" fellow anyway? Does RC stand for "Royal Crown" Cola?

[quote]. . . but that's a caricature of what is meant by Sola Scrip-tura. The corrrect definition of Sola Scrip-tura is that all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible. Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scrip-tura is not a truth necessary to salvation.[/quote]
Where does this correct definition come from? Does it come from the Bible? If so, please cite where in the Bible it says this. (Chapter and verse, please.) If it is not in the Bible, where then does it come from?

[quote]Catholics and Christians both agree that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Catholics add to this their sacred deposit of Oral Traditions and their Teaching Magesterium as the other two legs of the Revelation of God. [b]
Catholics believe things that are NOT at all even mentioned in the Bible like the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a priesthood (celibate no less), transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary and the promotions of Mary.[/b][/quote]
Many of these things do have evidence in the Bible. I can get some citations if you're interested, but each of those would become a thread in itself and off the main topic here.

[quote]The only one of authority that can be trusted is the written Word. ECFs disagree with each other, oral tradition is just another term for continuing revelation, magisterium is just another circular invention.

Jesus Christ could have made a declaration by Himself (being God) but He referred the Pharisees and even the Devil to Scrip-ture.
[b]
The Bereans knew that the Bible is where doctrines are tested, nothing has changed.[/b][/quote]

As for oral traditions, how do you think the Word of God was spread by the apostles before it was written down?

2 Thessalonians 2:14: [quote]Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether [b]by word [/b] or by our epistle.[/quote]

And as to the Bible itself, where did the Bible come from?
Did God suddenly drop it down from the heavens one day? (the KJV, no doubt, nicely bound in leather)
There were many religious writings circulating in the days of the early Church. Who decided which books were divinely inspired and which were not?

Edited August 7, 2006 by Socrates

[DAF]

Yeah Budge, I mean, there's so many different groups of Christians out there that's it's almost comical. Why is your definition better than the other 25,000 Christian churches out there who are ignorant of your wisdom, and do in fact subscribe to what you've called the"Royal Crown's definition?"

And, if we went by your definition, I don't know why Protestants like you, are so militant against the Church. Following your line of reasoning, just because it isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it's not profitable for salvation, it's just that everything you need is already there (in the Bible).

So tell me Budge, why do Catholics need to be saved? The Church "venerates sacred scripture like the venerates the body of Christ, (CCC 103)" which I think is more than most Protestants can say, seeing how they abuse it so much. The Church is far more scriptural than any "Open Arms Fuzzy Feel Good Bible Church of the What's Happenin' Now." (Even though the Bible is a gift of the Church, not vice versa)

Again, with over 25,000 Christian denominations out there, most of which all contradicting each other on some crucial doctrine, and yet all claiming to be going by scripture for their necessary doctrines of salvation, clearly they can't all be right, how do you justify this? They're not listenin' to the Holy Spirit? They don't got that fiare of Jesus? (that clearly you have).

What can you say for those early Christians 1500 years before Martin Luther who didn't get the memo that the Bible's all you need and that the Church is the whore of Babylon? Are they lost? Saved by ignorance? What?

[chris]

[quote]Before we get started, I need you to define what you think Sola Scripture means...[/quote]

I know what it means, Because I used to go by it and sadly man your way off. Sounds like your making excuses.

It has meant the same thing that your ''reformers'' has stated for years. The question is do you really know what it means?

Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone = 30,000 Mislead Protestant Denominations that say they are preaching the Truth of Christ, But none of them ever agree.

[quote]Catholics add to this their sacred deposit of Oral Traditions and their Teaching Magesterium as the other two legs of the Revelation of God.
[/quote]

We never added oral tradition St. Paul asked us to follow the traditions of the Apostles look at 2 Thess. 2:15

And Christ said that the Church is the Pillar of The foundations.So, therefore without its pillar the structure cannot stand. We believe we also gain our authority from Christ himself. Read Matt 16:18

and here you go:

[quote]1.Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

2.Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

3.If Christianity is a "book religion," how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

[/quote]


Your not worth debating because, you dont even know what it means. Even the german reformer Luther says that Sola Scriptura was but Scripture alone. This went in line with Sola Fida and Sola Gratia' all taught and defined by Luther.

Your supposed interpretation of Sola Scriptura was a glib cover up of the real meaning because, you know that down to the point the dogma of all the "sola" principles holds no water. So you revert to just making stuff up. Because, what you put and what Luther put (being the one who fabricated this nonsense.) Are quite seperate.

[quote]Sola Scrip-tura means that all true propositions are stated in the Bible. Since Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in Bible, it then follows that Sola Scrip-tura is not a true proposition.[/quote]

This is quite watered down...

[quote] Solā scripturā (Latin for by scripture alone)[/quote]

translate the word before, you change the meaning...

[quote]The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture[/quote]

Sounds nothing like what you have....And I took this from a forum who prides themselves on Sola Scriptura.


Remeber, your precious sola scriptura is a tradition. So watch what traditions you mock because we all fall subject to ritualism even in our daily lives.


And as for your confusion on the Eucharist. In St. John 6 Christ states that the bread and wine is his true body and his true blood and even his own followers didnt believe him. Maybe thats you? Would you questions what Christ says. You believe in Sola Scriptura...Its in the Bible therefore its true. So dont complicate the situation. Believe it...Or fall into the category of men who stopped following Christ because, they couldnt believe even GOD himself.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Convert4888

[ReinnieR]

alright Budge.

Jesus founded a church not a book.

he didn't write anything. the closes thing was when he wrote on the ground, to this day we don't know what he wrote.

he founded a teaching church.

that church is the HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Matthew 16:18
he founded it on the rock which is Peter

Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter

you can hold your own private interpretation of that.

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom

what does that mean?

it means authority

Isaiah 22:15-25

this is the only church that has the successor of St. Peter

the church has existed for 2000 years.

Christ commisioned 12 men to be his Apostles

todays Bishops are successors of the Apostles

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"

this is the only church that can say existed before the Bible.



say what you wanna say

we're gonna believe the Apostles who were trained by Christ himself. those who existed 2000 years ago. and we're gonna believe their succesors.


over you who are just now reading the bible.

hold your own private interpretations of scripture

we were told not to

2 Peter 3:16

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1038783' date='Aug 6 2006, 07:16 PM']
Already I see you have the definition off....

Roman Catholics love to claim that the doctrine of Sola Scrip-tura contradicts itself. That is if the doctrine is true, then they reason that it ought to be stated in Scrip-ture. The problem stems from RCs mis-interpreting what Sola Scripture means.

[b]
The RCs definition goes something like this:
Sola Scrip-tura means that all true propositions are stated in the Bible. Since Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in Bible, it then follows that Sola Scrip-tura is not a true proposition.
[/b]
. . . but that's a caricature of what is meant by Sola Scrip-tura. The corrrect definition of Sola Scrip-tura is that all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible. Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scrip-tura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

Catholics and Christians both agree that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Catholics add to this their sacred deposit of Oral Traditions and their Teaching Magesterium as the other two legs of the Revelation of God.
[b]
Catholics believe things that are NOT at all even mentioned in the Bible like the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a priesthood (celibate no less), transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary and the promotions of Mary.[/b]

The only one of authority that can be trusted is the written Word. ECFs disagree with each other, oral tradition is just another term for continuing revelation, magisterium is just another circular invention.

Jesus Christ could have made a declaration by Himself (being God) but He referred the Pharisees and even the Devil to Scrip-ture.
[b]
The Bereans knew that the Bible is where doctrines are tested, nothing has changed.[/b]
[/quote]
You seem to forget that the Church predates the New Testament, and the New Testament is a product of the Church. The Church was functioning and Mass being offered long before scriptures were set. The Church is the pillar and foundation, not a book.
So any written material out there that the Church didn't agree with isn't even IN the present Bible :

[pyranima]

[quote name='Budge' post='1038783' date='Aug 6 2006, 05:16 PM']
Already I see you have the definition off....

Roman Catholics love to claim that the doctrine of Sola Scrip-tura contradicts itself. That is if the doctrine is true, then they reason that it ought to be stated in Scrip-ture. The problem stems from RCs mis-interpreting what Sola Scripture means.

[b]
The RCs definition goes something like this:
Sola Scrip-tura means that all true propositions are stated in the Bible. Since Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in Bible, it then follows that Sola Scrip-tura is not a true proposition.
[/b]
. . . but that's a caricature of what is meant by Sola Scrip-tura. The corrrect definition of Sola Scrip-tura is that all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible. Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scrip-tura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

Catholics and Christians both agree that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. Catholics add to this their sacred deposit of Oral Traditions and their Teaching Magesterium as the other two legs of the Revelation of God.
[b]
Catholics believe things that are NOT at all even mentioned in the Bible like the evolution of the hierarchy, papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a priesthood (celibate no less), transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary and the promotions of Mary.[/b]

The only one of authority that can be trusted is the written Word. ECFs disagree with each other, oral tradition is just another term for continuing revelation, magisterium is just another circular invention.

Jesus Christ could have made a declaration by Himself (being God) but He referred the Pharisees and even the Devil to Scrip-ture.
[b]
The Bereans knew that the Bible is where doctrines are tested, nothing has changed.[/b]
[/quote]
you are going with a less fundamentalist def. and that is fine but i suggest we look at something you said that is not so complete. .

. . but that's a caricature of what is meant by Sola Scrip-tura. The corrrect definition of Sola Scrip-tura is that all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible. Sola Scrip-tura is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scrip-tura is not a truth necessary to salvation.

i am not completely sure how this can be, if you are saying that sola scriptura is not needed for slavation then you are saying that means of salvation can be found outside the bible. please address this.

Papal supremacy is slearly found in the bible, Papal infalliblity is also found in the bible (Matt16:13-19). Hierarchy is also mentioned as the bible mentions bishops priests and deacons given the meaning of the three and their relaions as well as definitive relation in language it is easy enough to see that the three titles were held as 3 different offices. i will not address the mass in scripture yet as it is a large topic only to say that it is in scripture as well. transubstantiation is also in scripture when you look at both john 6 as well as the institution Jesus says this IS my body. what you are looking for is the word transubstantiation and you will not find it just as you will not find the word trinity, first you had the belief then you had the word which was applied to the already existing belief. it is the standard of language development. and finally for confession Jn 20:22-23 ... “if you forgive ... they are forgiven.”
Mt 18:18 ... binding on earth and heaven.
2 Cor 5:18 ... ministry of reconciliation.
Jas 5:14-16 ... forgiveness of sins, anointing of the sick, confession.

as for mary if we discover that sola Scriptora is wrong then we need not worry if we discover it is right then it becomes an issue.


back to the topic at hand (sola scriptora)
your theory of oral tradition being a guise for continued rev. is not rational. it is logical to think that there are things that would not have been written down, things that would have at the time seemed obvious to the apostles they would not have written down. it would be pointless to state a given. however most of oral tradition has been written down by the early church fathers.


however the question that is primary to our dialogue is sola scriptora, i believe it is self evident that it is not correct given that we are never told what books belong in the bible. we needed someone to tell us what books belong in the bible. this is a form of oral tradition

[Eutychus]

[quote]Papal supremacy is slearly found in the bible, Papal infalliblity is also found in the bible (Matt16:13-19). [/quote]

Only if you were raised in a convent bible study environment.

I guess Paul missed that class when he clearly corrrected Peter on a matter of "faith and morals."

But then, accuracy isn't what drives Romanist exegesis, everyone can see that.

Fundamentally at the very core and heart of Catholicism, it is always PRIDE, and the desire to Lord It Over the rest of Christianity. Couple that with the unbridalled arrogance, hubris, and pettyfoggery of the boys in silk and gilded hockey sticks, toss in a few overeducated Jesuits historically, and today a few undereducated former "Tiberswimming *evangelicals*" and you have Catholic theology in a nutshell.

Wrap it all up, slap a new and improved label on the package, and tout it in the montly diocesan excuse letter.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Eutychus

[Aloysius]

Paul corrected Peter because Peter was treating Christian Jews differently than Christian Gentiles. How is that a "matter of faith and morals"? That was the pope personally sinning; Paul corrected his sinful action. Nowhere did Paul say Peter was teaching anything wrong, just that he was acting wrongly.

There have been many St. Paul's to the Pope's St. Peter throughout Church History, correcting the pope when he is too sinful or too prideful for the good of the Church.

no one in the Catholic Church is lording any pride over other denominations. these other denominations brough DIVISION into the body of Christ. Jesus Christ HATES that. Jesus Christ desires that all who believe in Him would be one and united in the same beliefs. It was pride in the reformer's hearts when Rome granted them that there were some abuses that needed to be fixed but refused to grant that their personal interpretations should change Christian teaching of the past 1500 yrs.

the rest of your post is nothing but hate-filled name-calling and I won't dignify it with a response. come back when you fill your heart with the love of Christ for your brothers and sisters in Christ.