The Authority Of Scripture

[123]

[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
[/quote]

No offense but, that verse in no way proves Sola Scriptura. Its profitable but, nowhere in that verse proves your personalized version of sola scriptura. It might prove the profitability of teaching [b]with[/b] Scripture, but not only by Scripture.

[b]Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological,") [/b]

That above statement is a protestant statement so don't try and manipulate Sola Scriptura. We see the English words similar to the Latin in the name Sola Scriptura.

Sola - Solo - Alone

Scriptura - Scripture - Holy Scriptures and/or Bible

Thats what its translated out to don't maniplate it. Go back to your own statment about samanticts.

[quote]Your men are not infallible nor did God ever declare them to be infallible.[/quote]

No one here has claimed anyone to be faillible or infailible. Secoundly, it doesnt say that [b] only[/b] the Scriptures are infaillible. Thirdly, our Traditions are all Christocentric, no one has ever proved them to be other wise. Catholics feel that through all our riturals and daily actions we please Christ, And sometimes that means pleaseing him without using the Bible. (Ex. Rosary and/or Novena)

If your ratting on the Pope, you really need to search more about it. Because, he is [b] not perfect[/b] he just speaks without err within the ground of the Church and the Bible. If a statement made by the Pope that is anti-Christian and anti-Biblical he is thus considered faillible, and making a false statement. You have even spoke infallibly on the grounds of God being the Supreme rule of Authority, have you spoken err? Or no err?

Edited November 21, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1124184' date='Nov 20 2006, 08:20 AM']

Here, change your "definition" above to "The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith" and try again.
[/quote]Which Bible? Whose canon? Here's a Methodist website that delineates the problem.

[url="http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm"]http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm[/url]

Protestantism makes every individual his own authority in interpreting the Scriptures. We know what a fallacy this is by the thousands of conflicting and competing denominations, all based on a different interpretation of the same 66-book cut version of the Bible.

That raises another question: Even when we know which Bible is the "real" one, of what use is an infallible book without an infallible interpreter?

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

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='GloriaIesusChristi' post='1124856' date='Nov 21 2006, 12:56 AM']
No offense but, that verse in no way proves Sola Scriptura. Its profitable but, nowhere in that verse proves your personalized version of sola scriptura. It might prove the profitability of teaching [b]with[/b] Scripture, but not only by Scripture.

[b]Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological,") [/b]

That above statement is a protestant statement so don't try and manipulate Sola Scriptura. We see the English words similar to the Latin in the name Sola Scriptura.

Sola - Solo - Alone

Scriptura - Scripture - Holy Scriptures and/or Bible

Thats what its translated out to don't maniplate it. Go back to your own statment about samanticts.
No one here has claimed anyone to be faillible or infailible. Secoundly, it doesnt say that [b] only[/b] the Scriptures are infaillible. Thirdly, our Traditions are all Christocentric, no one has ever proved them to be other wise. Catholics feel that through all our riturals and daily actions we please Christ, And sometimes that means pleaseing him without using the Bible. (Ex. Rosary and/or Novena)

If your ratting on the Pope, you really need to search more about it. Because, he is [b] not perfect[/b] he just speaks without err within the ground of the Church and the Bible. If a statement made by the Pope that is anti-Christian and anti-Biblical he is thus considered faillible, and making a false statement. You have even spoke infallibly on the grounds of God being the Supreme rule of Authority, have you spoken err? Or no err?
[/quote]


Sorry, you lost me. Was I denying the meaning of sola scriptura somewhere?

You also went off on some other tangents - I'm not following.

2 Tim 3:16-17:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, <b>that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.</b> "

The man of God is COMPETENT and equipped for EVERY good work.

There are other verses that support Sola Scriptura and the role of the scriptures throughout redemptive history support the idea. But I don't have time to go through it all - just wanted to offer the 2 Tim verse up as support.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1126485' date='Nov 22 2006, 10:55 PM']
Sorry, you lost me. Was I denying the meaning of sola scriptura somewhere?

You also went off on some other tangents - I'm not following.

2 Tim 3:16-17:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, <b>that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.</b> "

The man of God is COMPETENT and equipped for EVERY good work.

There are other verses that support Sola Scriptura and the role of the scriptures throughout redemptive history support the idea. But I don't have time to go through it all - just wanted to offer the 2 Tim verse up as support.
[/quote]
But it doesn't support sola scriptura. You forget when this was written the only scriptures in existance was the OT, there was no NT, so this verse doesn't apply to something not yet in existance.
THe Church picked out which letters and gospels were in the NT, so yes they are profitable and for training, but this wasn't done until the Church was already 400 years old.
The New Testament is a Catholic book, chosen by the Catholic Church for Catholics.Remember the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation, not a book.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1126485' date='Nov 22 2006, 10:55 PM']

2 Tim 3:16-17:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, <b>that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.</b> "

The man of God is COMPETENT and equipped for EVERY good work.[/quote]The same folks propose this same verse in support of SS who deny that good works are necessary! Go figure.

If you'll read v. 14-17, you'll see that St. Paul refers to the Scriptures Timothy has known since "infancy" or "childhood." This can only be the Greek Septuagint OT, the Scriptures that St. Paul used and St. Timothy had been taught all his life by his mother and grandmother, and which most Protestants reject. It most certainly did not include the NT which didn't exist. Strike one. Strike two, these verses do not say that [u]only[/u] the Scriptures are profitable, etc. Strike three, you've gotta define "Scriptures."

[quote]There are other verses that support Sola Scriptura and the role of the scriptures throughout redemptive history support the idea. But I don't have time to go through it all - just wanted to offer the 2 Tim verse up as support.
[/quote]You'll be the first Protestant in human history ever to do so. And you must define "Scripture" before you can say that Scripture Only is the sole rule for faith and morals. That requires an inspired, God-given list of the table of contents of the Bible. Where is it? The Protestant Bible was defined by Martin Luther, who rejected parts of the original. The Catholic Bible was the first, the original Bble, defined by the Catholic Bishops at various councils at the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. Before that, there was no Bible as we know it.

Jesus left us a Church, not a Bible. The Church produced the Bible.

The Bible says the [u]Church[/u] (not the Bible) is the "household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 2 Tm 3:15.

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

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1127160' date='Nov 24 2006, 07:02 PM']
The same folks propose this same verse in support of SS who deny that good works are necessary! Go figure.

If you'll read v. 14-17, you'll see that St. Paul refers to the Scriptures Timothy has known since "infancy" or "childhood." This can only be the Greek Septuagint OT, the Scriptures that St. Paul used and St. Timothy had been taught all his life by his mother and grandmother, and which most Protestants reject. It most certainly did not include the NT which didn't exist. Strike one. Strike two, these verses do not say that [u]only[/u] the Scriptures are profitable, etc. Strike three, you've gotta define "Scriptures."

You'll be the first Protestant in human history ever to do so. And you must define "Scripture" before you can say that Scripture Only is the sole rule for faith and morals. <b> That requires an inspired, God-given list of the table of contents of the Bible. Where is it?</b> The Protestant Bible was defined by Martin Luther, who rejected parts of the original. The Catholic Bible was the first, the original Bble, defined by the Catholic Bishops at various councils at the end of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth. Before that, there was no Bible as we know it.

Jesus left us a Church, not a Bible. The Church produced the Bible.

The Bible says the [u]Church[/u] (not the Bible) is the "household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 2 Tm 3:15.

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


Can you show me where the OT table of contents is?

[123]

There never was a divinely inspired table of contents.However, the Church organized and set up the Scriptures, because she was given power by Christ to bind and to loose and that she was the pillar and foundation of truth ( Hence, these descriptive adjectives show that without the pillar or foundation, nothing would stand.)

Amen! The Scriptures are God breathed and indeed! That inspired text is with us to teach and train and teach and train I will. However, there is no other verse that says that sola scriptura is required or even existant.

Edited November 27, 2006 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1128841' date='Nov 27 2006, 08:41 AM']
Can you show me where the OT table of contents is?
[/quote]The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles -- the Greek Septuagint -- and named them the Old Testament. You'll find the original contents of the OT in the front of every Catholic Bible.

This happened at the close of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth, at the same councils as the canonization and naming of the New Testament and the formation of the Bible.

Would you like to read the decrees of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage where this occurred?

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

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1128903' date='Nov 27 2006, 12:00 PM']
The Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles -- the Greek Septuagint -- and named them the Old Testament. You'll find the original contents of the OT in the front of every Catholic Bible.

This happened at the close of the fourth century and beginning of the fifth, at the same councils as the canonization and naming of the New Testament and the formation of the Bible.

Would you like to read the decrees of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage where this occurred?

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


I think you are missing the point.

You said that the Timothy verses about scriptures he had known since infancy were referring to the OT scriptures. Obviously those must have been gathered in some sort of a collection for Timothy to read and for Jesus to refer and quote from (pre-Catholic Church).

So where was the OT table of contents? How did the Jews and earliest Christians (like Timothy) know what where consider “scripture”?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1129024' date='Nov 27 2006, 04:26 PM']
I think you are missing the point.

You said that the Timothy verses about scriptures he had known since infancy were referring to the OT scriptures. Obviously those must have been gathered in some sort of a collection for Timothy to read and for Jesus to refer and quote from (pre-Catholic Church).

So where was the OT table of contents? How did the Jews and earliest Christians (like Timothy) know what where consider “scripture”?
[/quote]
Most of those things were passed on orally...most people who knew the Scriptures knew them precisely because they weren't written down (and thus, the need to memorize them was increased).

Furthermore, the canon wasn't established in Jesus' time. The Sadducees, for instance, accepted only the Torah, while the Pharisees accepted the full canon, and other groups accepted other texts which we consider apocryphal. Obviously, Jesus knew which Scriptures were inspired and which weren't.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1129024' date='Nov 27 2006, 04:26 PM']
I think you are missing the point.

You said that the Timothy verses about scriptures he had known since infancy were referring to the OT scriptures. Obviously those must have been gathered in some sort of a collection for Timothy to read and for Jesus to refer and quote from (pre-Catholic Church).

So where was the OT table of contents? How did the Jews and earliest Christians (like Timothy) know what where consider “scripture”?
[/quote]You're right. I misunderstood your question. As Raphael explained, there was no defined list at the time of Jesus. But the same Septuagint Scriptures canonized by the Catholic Church were used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and His Apostles (and Timothy) were trained and taught.

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

[cosiegirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1129481' date='Nov 27 2006, 11:59 PM']
You're right. I misunderstood your question. As Raphael explained, there was no defined list at the time of Jesus. But the same Septuagint Scriptures canonized by the Catholic Church were used in the first century synagogues where Jesus and His Apostles (and Timothy) were trained and taught.

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


Then how did the 1st Century Jews know what was inspired?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1132158' date='Nov 30 2006, 05:56 PM']
Then how did the 1st Century Jews know what was inspired?
[/quote]The same way you know the Scriptures in the 21st century -- you accept the word of some authority in whom you place your trust. For Jews, it was the rabbis and the synagogue.
If a writing was used in the synagogue, it was "Scripture."

In your case, your authority is Martin Luther and the "Reformers" who followed him. Luther removed eleven books and parts of two others from the canon of Scriptures. Four from the NT were later replaced (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation). Seven OT books and parts of Esther and Daniel were not replaced and are still missing from Protestant Bibles.

It's a question of Authority. And trusting that Authority. Who has the Authority in Christianity? Martin Luther, your minister, or the Church founded by Jesus Christ who wrote the NT and is guardian and interpreter of the Scriptures?

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

[Katholikos]

We seem to have lost Joolye. Have we adequately answered your questions?


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

[mroger]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1117525' date='Nov 11 2006, 10:53 AM']
Joolye wrote:
Most NT references to Scripture are to the Greek Septuagint OT. None are to the NT. And nearly all Protestants reject the Septuagint. Go figure.

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


After reading the New Testament, I have discovered that the writers of the New Testament were not aware that a New Testament Bible was being written, and somehow they managed to maintain authority. Weird, huh!