The Authority Of Scripture

[123]

[quote]The "authority" of the Bible comes from God and God alone.

Let's look at it this way.

Hypothetically, if we could prove that the Bible was NOT written by God then would it still have authority because the Church put it together?

Likewise, if we could prove that the Catholic Church is bogus, would the Bible no longer be the Word of God (even though it is still written by God).

OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?
[/quote]


[i]Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.[/i]

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Secod Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independant of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.


[quote]OR, ultimately, where does all authority of your church and Traditons come from? Do they come from men or from God?
[/quote]

Our authority comes from Christ when he mentions to St. Peter that he is the rock on which he will build our Church, We (The Church) have the power to bind and loose on Heaven and Earth. (See Matthew 16:18-21)


-1 Timothy 3:15 says that he Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

-2 Thessalonians 2:15 Instructs us (as in the future generations of Christ's church) to carry on the traditions they (as in the Apostles whom learned our traditions from Christ, himself) estabilised through Word of Mouth or by Episitle.

Edited November 19, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Joolye]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1123813' date='Nov 20 2006, 10:44 AM']
[i]Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.[/i]

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.
[/quote]

That is not a very good argument. It is based on semantics. The phrase "and only the Bible" is not an addition to the Bible, it is simply a clarification. Your sentence could easily be written as: "The Bible alone is the rule of faith". It is not necessary to say "The Bible and only the Bible", but if one chooses to say that, they are just using a form of rhetoric - emphasising that it's only the Bible they are talking about. They are not saying "the Bible PLUS only the Bible" as such.

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1123351' date='Nov 19 2006, 09:45 AM']
You are very welcome, Joolye.

I quoted your first post again so I could ask you, have we answered all your questions fully?[/quote]

I think so.

[quote]
The error (in the Catholic view) of making the Scriptures the supreme authority...[/quote]

The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.

[quote]You may have missed my question. What does Hammond mean in his book by the term, "the church"? [/quote]

I assume that he means the body of Christ, believers.

[quote]You mentioned that Hammond's argument is not yours. Do you have a different argument you would like us to address?
[/quote]

No. I would need to do a lot more research for that and I don't want to do that just now. I have just finished college, no need to impose voluntary study on myself!

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1123394' date='Nov 19 2006, 12:13 PM']=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
[/quote]

Why do you say "Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!"?

[123]

[quote]The Bible alone is the rule of faith".[/quote]

Yet, this cannot be Scripturally proven. The Bible alone cannot prove the "Bible Alone" mentailty.

Scripture certainly is a "standard of truth" (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure.

Its more than semantics. Believe me.

Edited November 20, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Joolye]

I know that it's all more than semantics. But the argument that I quoted was only a semantic argument.

[123]

First things first, the debate isnt over the english vocabulary, Its over the issue of Sola Scriptura. Secondly, There hasn't been one verse to prove Sola Scriptura.

[quote]The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.
[/quote]

Then you admit that Sola Scriptura is inaccurate?

Edited November 20, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Katholikos]

[b]Joolye wrote:[/b]

[quote]Why do you say "Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!"?[/quote]

The message is an invocation, a prayer, asking for Father Damien's intercession (one of the meanings of "pray" is to ask).

While I was still an atheist, I came across a booklet about the life of Father Damien. He is known as the leper priest of Molokai, Hawaii. He went from Belgium to Hawaii as a missionary. He learned that the Hawaiian government had rounded up all the people known to be infected with leprosy and had isolated them on an island alone to fend for themselves. Leprosy is a disfiguring, crippling disease, so these people were in desperate straits just to feed themselves. Father Damien lobbied the government on their behalf and went to the island of Molokai himself to be with them and help them. He built houses for them, taught them carpentry and agriculture, treated their wounds, built schools for them, helped them construct a Church, taught them reliigon, baptized them and their children, and helped them save their souls. He developed leprosy himself and died as a young man in 1889. His face, horribly disfigured from leprosy, showed no signs of the disease after his death.

That was the beginning of the end of my atheism. I wondered what kind of religion would motivate a man to end his life that way. At that time, I looked upon his death as a deliberate suicide and a waste.

Long story short, Father Damien's story touched my heart. He became my spiritual companion on my loooooong journey into the Catholic Church. After I was received, I went to court and legally changed my last name to Damien in his honor.

I am very fond of several saints, but he's at the top of my list. He was God's friend first. I ask him to pray for me because he is close to me and close to God. It's good to have friends in high places.

He has not yet been declared a saint, but has been beatified by official declaration of the Church and bears the title "blessed" (pronounced bless-ed).

Thanks for the question.

Jay Damien

=======================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

edit to add: P.S. His picture is my avatar.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Katholikos

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1123813' date='Nov 19 2006, 06:44 PM']
[i]Either your not listening or you don't even know what your fighting for.[/i]

The Protestant error of "sola scriptura" is self refuting. The term "sola scriptura" can be defined as follows: "The Bible and only the Bible is the infallible rule of faith." But the words "only the Bible" can be translated into Latin as "sola scriptura".

Substituting this into the above definition we have: "The Bible and 'sola scriptura' is the rule of faith."

This shows that "sola scriptura" logically refutes itself because this principle must be assumed to be true IN ADDITION TO the Bible. As such, "sola scriptura" refutes what it purports to claim.

This is an application of Kurt Godel's Secod Incompleteness Theorem from metamathematical analysis. Self-referential statements (such as the Liar Paradox of Epimenides or using the Bible to prove the Bible to be the sole rule of faith independant of any external referent) are notorious for making statements which are logically unprovable within the formal system that makes the claim. It is only by assuming a transcendental position outside the system under scrutiny that such contentions can be proven true or false.

In the case of "sola scriptura," the necessity of assuming the transcendental position in and of itself refutes the principle under question.

[/quote]

No offense, but this is about te dumbest thing I have heard.

Here, change your "definition" above to "The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith" and try again.

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1123985' date='Nov 19 2006, 11:38 PM']
Yet, this cannot be Scripturally proven. The Bible alone cannot prove the "Bible Alone" mentailty.

Scripture certainly is a "standard of truth" (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure.

Its more than semantics. Believe me.
[/quote]


“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Tim 3:16


The Greek word for “breathe out by God” is “theopneustos”. It means inspired by God. The verse above is the only place that word is used.

The Bible is infallible because it is the only thing that is “breathed out by God” and God is infallible.

Your “men” are not infallible nor did God ever declare them to be infallible.

Therefore, only Scripture stands as our infallible source. Everything else is fallible.

And I know you will come back with your "pillar of truth" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail" but even if I give you your incorrect interpretation of those passages, it still stands that ONLY Scriture is "God-breathed".

[SJP]

SolaScriptura,
waiting for a reply to my previous post.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1124206' date='Nov 20 2006, 08:53 AM']
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” 2 Tim 3:16
The Greek word for “breathe out by God” is “theopneustos”. It means inspired by God. The verse above is the only place that word is used.

The Bible is infallible because it is the only thing that is “breathed out by God” and God is infallible.

Your “men” are not infallible nor did God ever declare them to be infallible.

Therefore, only Scripture stands as our infallible source. Everything else is fallible.

And I know you will come back with your "pillar of truth" and "the gates of Hades will not prevail" but even if I give you your incorrect interpretation of those passages, it still stands that ONLY Scriture is "God-breathed".
[/quote]


You know, that verse is always thrown out when someone wants to prove Sola Scriptura, but it simply doesn't work. It doesn't say anything at all about "only Scripture is breathed...," it says, "all Scripture is breathed." That's quite an important distinction. Your conclusion that "it still stands that ONLY Scriture is 'God-breathed'" is therefore based on faulty interpretations.

Now, I will give you another. As you know, the word for the Holy Spirit is pneuma. It literally means breath. In John 20:22, Jesus breathed on them and indicated that they were receiving the Holy Spirit. Now, if it is the same Breath by which God-breathed Scriptures are inspired, then it would follow that the pastors of the Church, those upon whom Jesus breathed, are guided by the Holy Spirit and that their teachings are God-breathed. That would include the things St. Paul mentioned as handed down by word of mouth. Of course, they are only human and they can act against the Holy Spirit, so Jesus wanted to make sure there was always someone to keep them from doing so. This is why He called Simon the Rock and why the Scriptures, which are God-breathed, assert that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (since He breathed forth His Spirit upon the Cross and it did what? It went to the Apostles on Pentecost, who began to teach and to write, and do you think that somehow they magically were inspired in writing, but not in teaching? Let's think about this: God wants them to evangelize and spread the Gospel...they can do this more readily by preaching than by writing, since most of the population can't read...don't you think God would inspire their spoken words, too?). Now, you can just disregard these things, as you did in your above post, but that would be saying that the Scriptures were wrong, which is something gravely contrary to your whole point. How do you reconcile the fact that the Holy Spirit, by which the Scriptures are God-breathed, also quite clearly guides the Church itself with your theology that only the Scriptures are inspired? If it is the guidance of the Holy Spirit that denotes inspiration, that most certainly, both are inspired. If not, then your argument is void.

[Katholikos]

To: Sola Scriptura

About: 2 Tm 3:14-17

When he used the word "Scripture," St. Paul meant the Greek Septuagint, which we now call the OT. This was the only "Scripture" Timothy could have known from his infancy. The NT was in process and would not become a reality for another three and a half centuries. The Septuagint was the only scripture that Paul used. All the quotes from the OT in his letters are from the Greek Scriptures, not the Hebrew.

Here's the kicker: almost all Protestants reject the Septuagint.

Protestants use this verse to defend Sola Scriptura, not recognizing that 'ALL' Scripture as defined by St. Paul includes the writings Protestants label "apocrypha."

So you and other Protestants have effectively rendered this passage to mean "some" but not "all" Scripture is inspired.

=========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1123977' date='Nov 19 2006, 11:35 PM']

The supreme authority? God is the supreme authority.[/quote]
Perhaps you've forgotten your November 10 original post:
"He [Hammond] says that the Bible is the supreme authority." I was responding to Hammond's statement.

[quote]I assume that he [Hammond] means the body of Christ, believers.[/quote]The invisible church of all 'true believers'? This was another of Martin Luther's doctrines of expediency and necessity because of the proliferation of denominations, even during his lifetime.

[quote]No. I would need to do a lot more research for that and I don't want to do that just now. I have just finished college, no need to impose voluntary study on myself![/quote]What did your studies cover? No offense intended, Joolye, but I find it strange the anyone could graduate from a Bible college and not have studied the obvious question of how the Bible originated. But that's often the case with Protestant Bible colleges in the U.S. as well. When one considers the history of the Bible, it's no surprise that Protestant schools avoid the subject.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your questions and responses.

==========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

[Katholikos]

Joolye:

In an earlier post, I promised to post the Orthodox Popes for you. Thus far, I have found only Coptic (Egyptian) Popes. As I told you, all bishops were originally called pope (Greek: pappas, a children's term for Father, it's similar to Abba in the Bible, in English "Daddy."). Here you get a glimpse of the original unity of the Catholic Church, before the Orthodox schism. There is not a "Pope" over the several Orthodox Churches. The Coptic Orthodox is only one of the Orthodox Churches.

BTW, there is also an Eastern Catholic Coptic Church.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Popes"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Popes[/url]

=================================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

Edited to correct a typo

Edited November 21, 2006 by Katholikos

[Joolye]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1124369' date='Nov 21 2006, 06:43 AM']
Perhaps you've forgotten your November 10 original post:
"He [Hammond] says that the Bible is the supreme authority." I was responding to Hammond's statement.

The invisible church of all 'true believers'? This was another of Martin Luther's doctrines of expediency and necessity because of the proliferation of denominations, even during his lifetime.

What did your studies cover? No offense intended, Joolye, but I find it strange the anyone could graduate from a Bible college and not have studied the obvious question of how the Bible originated. But that's often the case with Protestant Bible colleges in the U.S. as well. When one considers the history of the Bible, it's no surprise that Protestant schools avoid the subject.

Peace be with you, and thanks for your questions and responses.

==========================
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!
[/quote]


I did the mission studies stream, not theology, but of course I did theology subjects too. We did cover the origin of the Bible and yes the early church fathers put it together. I didn't do an essay on that subject though or an essay on the reasons for Sola Scriptura, so I don't know the argument in depth.

[HS_Dad]

[quote name='Joolye' post='1124817' date='Nov 20 2006, 10:54 PM']
I did the mission studies stream.....
[/quote]

Cool, that's probably the thing I miss the most about Evangelicalism... The wonderful missions conferences.

Joolye, pray for a growth of a missionary spirit within Catholicism!!! Imagine over 1 billion people on fire
to spread the Good News!!!