Laudate_Dominum Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 2 tim 3:16 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. Heres my question, Did Pual know that his letter to Timothy was scripture or was he talking about Old Testament? In order to prove sola scriptura you would need to ask where the Bible came from. Who put these letters together? I know your answer will probably be God, but whom did he work through to make sure this book was put together? 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, Yeah, I've never understood why protestants often think this says anything about sola scriptura. It says that Scripture is inspired and is useful for various things. The Catholic Church has always taught this. This does not in any way assert the doctrine of sola scriptura which was taught by certain men 1,500 years later and is utterly foreign to the Bible and historical Christianity.
Silverbug Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 By golly you are right! Thin air it is! ok seriously. Many times in the Bible, Christ referred to scripture-shouldnt we use His example, and NOW since we have a complete Bible, use it? I mean, if you are to take this argument to its logical extreme, as it does elsewhere on this site, then, using that logic, who could use the Bible at all? This Book, the one book inspired by God himself, was put here for a reason. To teach us. Using 2 tim, in context still points to using the Bible as a benchmark-and as i said earlier in conjunctin with acts 17:11, use it to measure tradition for truth.
Laudate_Dominum Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 By golly you are right! Thin air it is! ok seriously. Many times in the Bible, Christ referred to scripture-shouldnt we use His example, and NOW since we have a complete Bible, use it? I mean, if you are to take this argument to its logical extreme, as it does elsewhere on this site, then, using that logic, who could use the Bible at all? This Book, the one book inspired by God himself, was put here for a reason. To teach us. Using 2 tim, in context still points to using the Bible as a benchmark-and as i said earlier in conjunctin with acts 17:11, use it to measure tradition for truth. Certainly Scripture is the infallible Word of God. It is truly amesome and is Divine Revelation, inerrant, Divinely inspired and sufficient. But this does not necessarily imply the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. That's my point. You can have a very high understanding of Scripture (as the Fathers and the Catholic Church to this day have) and not necessarily hold that Scripture is all you need. The Bible doesn't interpret itself (consider the Ethiopian in acts, "how can I understand unless someone explains it to me", or Peter's statement about how people misinterpret Paul). Christ established a Church with men appointed to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures and teach in His name. You cannot divorce the Scriptures from the Church that Christ established. Christ and the Apostles could authoritatively use the Bible. And we can use the Bible and know we have correct doctrine (orthodoxy) because the Church has a Sacred Tradition and a teaching authority (Magisterium) which guides us and safeguards the Truths of God. For example all of the heretics throughout history based their doctrines on misinterpreting Scripture. We know they were wrong because the Church that Christ established on the Apostles, and promised that He would guide in all Truth, has authoritatively taught what is the correct doctrine. If this was not so the we would not have assurance of things like the Trinity, the Unity of Christ, Christ's true Divinity, the Canon of Scripture, etc..
Dave Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 (edited) By golly you are right! Thin air it is! ok seriously. Many times in the Bible, Christ referred to scripture-shouldnt we use His example, and NOW since we have a complete Bible, use it? I mean, if you are to take this argument to its logical extreme, as it does elsewhere on this site, then, using that logic, who could use the Bible at all? Christ never said that Scripture ALONE sufficed. Just because he quoted Scripture, why would that mean that nothing else was necessary? If you're implying that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are contradictory or compete with another, then you're wrong on both counts. They actually complement each other. This Book, the one book inspired by God himself, was put here for a reason. To teach us. Using 2 tim, in context still points to using the Bible as a benchmark-and as i said earlier in conjunctin with acts 17:11, use it to measure tradition for truth. Of course it was put here for a reason -- it's a wonderful and necessary tool for teaching. But didn't you read what I said earlier in this thread that you're taking that passage from Acts out of context? Let me quote that again: Sorry, but you're taking that verse out of context. The Bereans had first been taught Christianity and were checking to make sure its claims matched Old Testament prophecies. It doesn't mean that the Bible has to be used as a checklist for all Christian doctrines. If it did, then since only the Old Testament existed at the time, it would mean that only the Old Testament should be used for that purpose and that the New Testament would be totally out-of-place. Edited February 18, 2004 by Dave
Silverbug Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 Laudate-- Certainly Scripture is the infallible Word of God. It is truly amesome and is Divine Revelation, inerrant, Divinely inspired and sufficient. Ok-so we are in agreement here that the Bible as we know it today is a Divinely inspired written Word of God. You can have a very high understanding of Scripture (as the Fathers and the Catholic Church to this day have) and not necessarily hold that Scripture is all you need. The Bible doesn't interpret itself (consider the Ethiopian in acts, "how can I understand unless someone explains it to me" And we can use the Bible and know we have correct doctrine (orthodoxy) because the Church has a Sacred Tradition and a teaching authority (Magisterium) which guides us and safeguards the Truths of God So are you saying that the Catholic church alone holds the keys to understanding scripture?
Dave Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 So are you saying that the Catholic church alone holds the keys to understanding scripture? I hope Laudate doesn't mind me answering, but yes, as a matter of fact, it does. Under the Old Covenant, it was said, "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth" (Malachi 2:7). Under the New Covenant, Christ sent his Church to teach men and transferred to it the authority that the priests of the Old Covenant had. We can and must read the Bible, as ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. But the Bible also indicates that a divinely appointed guide is needed to get through the more difficult to understand passages. And there are many!
phatcatholic Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 ok...........let it be known to all that this thread is officially now about sola scriptura. if u wish to comment further on ex-catholic testimony or silverbug's faith journey, please start another thread. when doing so, please note that the new thread is an extension of topics presented in this one, and quote relevent info from this thread if necessary. thank you, phatcatholic
M.SIGGA Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 my bad ya'll...I'll start a new thread. Thanks Silverbug for sharing your testimony.
phatcatholic Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 my bad ya'll...I'll start a new thread. Thanks Silverbug for sharing your testimony. m. sigga, it looks like dave has already created one. just a quick heads up ;)
foundsheep Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 Acts 17:11 These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so. Once again the situations in acts where pre New Testament writing. The word became flesh. They recieved the word. Could it be the body and blood(communion) and knowledge of Jesus Christ through the apostles? Examine the scriptures Daily. Wow. To my amazement again these people had the books of the new Testament during the time of Book of Acts. Could they have been studying old Testament scriptures to compare the prophecies to match it to what happened to Christ. Or where they reading the Pauline letters already?
Hananiah Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 So are you saying that the Catholic church alone holds the keys to understanding scripture? Some things in Scripture are clear enough that anyone can understand them, without recourse to an infallible interpreter (e.g. faith is a necessary condition for salvation, Christ was God, Christ died for our sins, baptism saves, etc.). However, there are also many other issues which are hard to undersand, and thus require the infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church.
Silverbug Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 That is why we were promised the Holy Spirit as the one who will reveal the Scriptures to us, NOT a man-made church. 1 john 2:27-28 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ.
phatcatholic Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 That is why we were promised the Holy Spirit as the one who will reveal the Scriptures to us, NOT a man-made church. 1 john 2:27-28 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ. yes, but Protestantism in and of itself proves that the Holy Spirit of wisdom and truth is not given to all people. afterall, if we are ALL promised this gift, then why do we disagree? if a lutheran is "inspired by the Holy Spirit" in his belief, and an episcopalian is "inspired by the Holy Spirit" in his belief, then why do they disagree. is the Holy Spirit not a Spirit of Truth? but, w/in the many, many denominations within protestantism, it appears the Spirit is contradicting Himself! of course, this can not be. therefore we are left to determine: who really is inspired by the Holy Spirit? i say the Catholic Church is. why? well, for one, John is writing here to the earliest Christians of the day, and only Catholicism has doctrine comparable to the earliest recorded Christian testimony. would you like proof? go here. secondly, only the Catholic Church has propogated and perpetuated the teachings of the Apostles from the very beginning through Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. "Whoever hears you, hears me" Jesus said to them. unfortunately, i'm at work so i don't have time to elaborate on this any further. for now, please go here and here for the scriptural proof. i hope this helps.......pax christi, phatcatholic
foundsheep Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 1 john 2:27-28 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ. While your at it go ahead and read the rest of John. Try Chapter 3 or 6. In chapter 6 What do you need for Life? Not a bible but what?
foundsheep Posted February 18, 2004 Posted February 18, 2004 That is why we were promised the Holy Spirit as the one who will reveal the Scriptures to us, NOT a man-made church. Really? Are you saying Protestant or Non Denominational churches are not Man Made? Yes Peter was a Man. So I guess that makes the church built on a man by Christ. But you once again have moved off Sola scriptura which cannot be proved by the Bible yet the Church can. Prove Sola Scriptura. Or bible alone.
phatcatholic Posted February 19, 2004 Posted February 19, 2004 That is why we were promised the Holy Spirit as the one who will reveal the Scriptures to us, NOT a man-made church. 1 john 2:27-28 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true – it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ. silverbug, name me one protestant denomination that can trace their origin back to the very apostles. it simply can not be done. all of protestantism does however trace itself back to one man: Martin Luther. you may say in reply, "well, Luther was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his new beliefs." but, this same man has a documented reverence for Mary, even holding to her Perpetual Virginity. so, if this is not what u believe about Mary, then u may want to think twice about invoking the Holy Spirit on his behalf. which, of course, brings you back to the present conundrum of explaining how protestantism is not man-made, as well as your previous conundrum of explaining how so many protestants are "inspired by the Holy Spirit," yet so many of them disagree--even on fundamental issues like salvation! two puzzles, for which there is only one answer..... pax christi, phatcatholic
Recommended Posts