Sola Scriptura

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Selah' date='19 September 2009 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1253405268' post='1969441']
Some things were handed down orally. Some written. Some were handed down in the gospels. Others through tradition, which is just as important.




Here's more at this link, if you want to take a look. Some quoted from the very same Fathers you asserted to be Sola Scriptura.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp"]http://www.catholic....c_Tradition.asp[/url]
[/quote]



[font="Arial"][size="2"]Storm, you're incredible. I gave you ample evidence that, if you had actually read my links, you would have seen what I was talking about.[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]
[font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]Selah.....if I had an apartment to rent and I knew what I know about you just as it pertains to this thread, I would not hesitate to have you as my tenant. So when I called you either "a liar, or a dishonest person, or someone who was just plain 'ol irresponsible", I can look beyond a person's shortcomings because I probably have more than you. I know it is offensive to human nature to be corrected, but we all have to be open to correction. Now when I asked you to please categorize yourself as either being a liar or someone who was just plain 'ol irresponsible, this is merely the logical conclusion I [u]must[/u] arrive at in view of the fact that you didn't include any evidence for your position. Now I see after I said this, you have provided some quotes. But [i]at the time,[/i] you demanded evidence, I gave it, and you did not in your answer, nor did you give any indication that you would. It's not a "hateful attitude" as you suggested, it was an honest assesment of your reply.[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]
[font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]Now, I didn't need to actually read the links because I told you I had the entire quotes of these men, in their wider context right in front of me![/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]

Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone. It means that Scripture is the final authority. It means that anything that is not contained in the Bible is heretical.
[color="#ff0000"]I'll say it again so this abysmal doctrine burns into your mind while you sleep and maybe God will cause you to vomit over it so the light of trusting in Christ ALONE for your salvation may shine through. You want me to believe in a supposedly "orally transmitted tradition"--- such as the doctrine of "papal subordination"----and that if I don't leave my brain at the Vatican doorstep, it's off in a handbasket I go, straight to hell as Vatican 1 CLEARLY pontificated. Would you like to read it for yourself?[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][i][font="Eras Demi ITC"][color="#800080"]"all of the faithful of Christ must believe that...the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world...and are bound by their duty of hierarchial subordination...to submit [to him]. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, [u]from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." [/u] (On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", chapter 3). Ludwig Ott affirms that "Dogmatic Faith" is the indispensable pre-requisite for the achieving of eternal salvation" [which are those things that are dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church such as papal subordination]. See pages 4-5 & 253 of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.[/color][/font][/i][color="#ff0000"][/color] [color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]I rebuke that filthy statement by reminding you that, "there is NO other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." (Ax 4:12). And that name AIN'T NO POPE! Catholicism is believing in another jesus and another gospel per 2 Cor 11:4.[/color]

In said articles, here are some of things that were mentioned: Apostolic Succession. Holy Communion (not merely as a symbol). Half the people you quoted were Popes, Bishops, and Priests. These people did not see Scripture as the final authority. If they did, there would be no need for a Pope! True, they saw Scripture as an authority, and used it to refute the heretics-but no early church Father saw Scripture as the final authority. NONE of them. They recognized the Church as the final authority. Christ founded a Church, not a book.


[color="#ff0000"]There you go again, insulting every true Christian believer by capatilizing the "C" in church, which the Bible NO WHERE does, and promoting it to mean the [i]Roman Catholic Church in particular. [/i]How dare you do this! Have you no shame? Now you have the utter gaul to go on and on about all these people recognizing the "[u]C[/u]hurch" as the final authority. Really now? As usual you are all talk and no action, since your assertion cannot be backed up. As they say, "SHOW ME THE MONEY, SELAH". Where are the quotes where they say the church is the final authority? Where are the quotes of anyone [u]demoting[/u] the S as the final authority? If it was there, you, being the zealous type that you are, would have included it to smear in my face. BUT SIMPLY SAYING SOMETHING, DOES NOT PROVE IT TO BE TRUE. Hence, you are being dishonest and willfully ignorant.

[/color][color="#ff0000"]"THESE ARE THE FOUNTAINS OF SALVATION, THAT THEY WHO THIRST MAY BE SATISFIED WITH THE LIVING WORDS THAT THEY CONTAIN. [u]IN THESE ALONE[/u] IS PROCLAIMED THE DOCTRINE OF GODLINESS" (NPNF2, Vol 4, Letters of Athanatius, 1. Festal Letters, Letter 29).


Furthermore, it does not matter in the least if anyone I quote believed in any particular Catholic doctrine. My thesis was that they were looking to SCRIPTURE to formulate their theology....end of story. Whatever conclusions they may have arrived at is totally NOT THE ISSUE, and it certainly doesn't prove that they were RIGHT!
[/color]


You know full well you took those quotes out of context. Maybe not intentionally, but they were taken and misconstrewed to mean something they were never meant to mean.
[color="#ff0000"]I didn't take ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. I quoted them directly to demonstrate that they were looking to a single authority to form their theology....and no other. THIS is what the history books show. YOU are the one who took Irenaius out of context, as I explained in my previous post and which no church historian will deny. But did you admit it? Of course not.[/color]
You can't warp history to make it say what you want.[color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]You are indeed a pip! I have no problem WHATSOEVER letting history speak for itself. You simply cannot deal with the fact that virtually all of these men were practicing sola scriptura in principle, and you are doing everything in your power to wish it away. [/color]
And I'm not gonna sit here and watch you twist and turn history to make it say what you want it to say.
[color="#ff0000"]Absolutely hilarious Selah. Like when Vatican 1 proclaimed that the, quote, "UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH" was united in their thinking that Peter was the Rock of Matt 16 in their mad dash to proclaim papal infallibilty. QUITE a few delegates had a problem with THAT bit of revisionist history if you know the story, and they were exactly right since there is NO SUCH THING as a universal consensus on this matter. But since they were on the Pope's payroll, they had to vote papal infallibility in or it would be curtains for them. As for me, I have not twisted a blessed thing! [/color]


I don't appreciate being called a liar or a deciever, but please know that despite your hateful attitude, I will continue to be gentle and charitibale with you. You will find no enemy in me, and if you choose to ignore history that's up to you. I really don't know what I can say that has not already been said
[color="#ff0000"]Here we go again, "I'm ignoring history". Let's take a look then at what you put on the table to show that these guys endorsed an extra-biblical, orally transmitted tradition that would lead me to believe, for example, that papal subordination was part of the original deposit of the faith. I think you better grab the smelling salts because I think yer gonna faint.[/color]
Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition,[b] for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture.[/b] The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Some things were handed down orally. Some written. Some were handed down in the gospels. Others through tradition, which is just as important.


[color="#ff0000"]I'll push it home again, only so it becomes branded on your forehead. If you think for one minute that a denial of papal authority results in HELL for the person who hangs their eternal destiny on the merits of Christ alone, was part of an oral tradition passed down from the apostles, you are simply out of your mind. That is nothing less than rank heresy![/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]As for "Epy".....your quote is worthless, because it is cancelled out by the fact that he agrees with the canon described by Josephus and Origen by OMITTING the writings of the Apocrypha![/color][color="#ff0000"](The Panarion of Epiphanius", Book 1, section I.6). What gives you the right to hold his "medicine chest tradition" you submitted, and nonchalantly ignore his other one that I just served you on a silver platter? You see, it's what I've been saying all along. If the fathers agree with the "Church" in any one point, Catholics will use it for all its worth. But when they don't, you just sweep them under the rug. It is nothing less than Cafeteria Catholicism, picking and choosing whatever supports you at the time and refusing to consider the wider context of the historical evidence that shows that these were just men like you and me who had their own opinions....period. Fine! Sometimes they were right, and other times they were not. But don't tell me that his "medicine chest" quote above is an infallible tradition and his other is not. It is completely arbitrary and you have no theological yardstick by which to upgrade the one and downgrade the other.[/color]

Quote

Vincent of Lerins

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: 'If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?' [b]Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . .[/b]

[color="#ff0000"]The sentence immediately preceding your quote (which you neglected) has Vinny about to define what he believes "tradition" is. And as I told you before, which you refused to acknowledge, one meaning is looking to the consensus of the fathers. In this paragraph, He most [i]definitely[/i] does [i]not[/i] mean a body of doctrine handed down orally from the apostles independent of Scripture, which you were trying to prove and which this paragraph does not even suggest. He is trying to put into a working principle that if there is a difference of opinion, it would be advisable to see if there was a consensus of opinion on a matter by those "holy ancestors who went before us". So what?????????[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]In regard to Vinny's, "Whatever is believed always, everywhere and by all".....John Henry Newman (whom Catholics always love to quote) said, "As true as the dictum of Vincentius must be in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, it does not seem possible to avoid the conclusion that whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later church, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem." ("An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", p. 27).[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]Moreover, Vinny knew, like all Protestants, there there was no alleged "exception" to sin in Mary. He argued against Pelagius and his disciple Celestius, who introduced the teaching of Mary being immaculately conceived, yet he knew that not one father in the early church agreed with their teaching. Vinny writes that it is contradictory to the catholic faith and that the universal teaching up till the time of Pelagius was that the ENTIRE human race was subject to the sin of Adam or original sin, making no exception to Mary (NPNF2, second series, vol 11, Vincent of Lerins, A Commentary 24.62).[/color]
[color="#ff0000"]So you will accept his quote you made at the outset--- but then Mr. Newman says it is not too uselful in practice--- and when we look deeper, we discover Vince is not in agreement with an alleged "tradition" that had been handed down to the apostles, we must conclude
[/color][color="#ff0000"]eenie meenie mynee mo, which tradition will have to go?[/color][color="#ff0000"]shall it be this one or that one, I don't know....[/color][color="#ff0000"]whatever's good for the Catholic Church,[/color][color="#ff0000"]there I'll be, i'll go with the flow. [/color]

Quote

Eusebius of Caesarea



"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith [b]received from tradition[/b]"
[color="#ff0000"]We have no problem with this statement WHATSOEVER. From the apostles has come down in writing, the gospel content of what they preached orally. I challenged you before on this and you remained silent; namely you cannot prove for an instant that the CONTENT of what they preached was in any way DIFFERENT to what they committed in writing, so you have no argument. Irenaeus said just this very thing: "...which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period, handed down to us IN THE SCRIPTURES, to be the ground and pillar of our faith...". But (oh my), you don't believe the Scriptures to be the ground and pillar of the faith as I pointed out to you last time, so once again, you ditch this statement as being valid tradition, and latch on to the other.....which I'll get to in a second.[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]By the way, Eusy also said this: "Conscientiously and sincerely, with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures"[/color][color="#ff0000"](NPNF, vol 4, Athanasius,Letter 56.1, p.567).[/color]

Quote Irenaeus (One of the Fathers you asserted was Sola Scriptura).

[color="#ff0000"]You think his saying that the SCRIPTURES are the pillar and ground of the faith is NOT a good evidence that he was utilizing the concept of sola scriptura?????????? I BEG to differ, and so would any logical thinking person reading this![/color]



"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. [b]For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same[/b]" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

[color="#ff0000"]I have already established Iren disagreed with the Roman Catholic interpretation of what constitutes the pillar and ground of the faith (namely, SCRIPTURE) so by what spiritual yardstick do you use to categorically DUMP that statement overboard, and embrace the above one in "Against Heresies"? There you go again, haphazardly picking and choosing whatever suits your purposes, and in the end, you have proven nothing.[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]But since you want me to say something about his "authority of tradition". He DOES NOT use that word to mean an extra-biblical source of revelation as every single person on this thread except you must realize! You are disgracefully reading something into that statement that is simply not there, and so how DARE you accuse ME of twisting someone's words?! This is, point blank, an inexcusable use of Irenaeus to support your position. Both Tertullian and Mr. Iren DEFINE in explicit terms the CONTENT of the apostolic tradition being handed down, and what you will find to your utter shock, is simply a summation of the major teachings of the Old and New Testaments!!!!! This is exactly what I told you before about them using the word "tradition" to refer to Scripture. See "The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, by Roberts and Rumnaut, and ANF, vol 3; Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, "On Prescription Against Heretics 13, p. 249. [/color][color="#ff0000"][/color][color="#ff0000"][/color][color="#ff0000"][/color]

[color="#ff0000"]Selah, I'm sure you are a very nice person, but you have lost this battle. I will try to move on to answer some other people's inquiries tomorrow.[/color]




[/size][/font]

Edited September 20, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='20 September 2009 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1253440176' post='1969569']
"all of the faithful of Christ must believe that...the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world...and are bound by their duty of hierarchial subordination...to submit [to him]. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, [u]from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." [/u] (On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", chapter 3).
[/quote]
I just thought I'd post [url="http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume3.htm#Chapter%203.%20On%20the%20power%20and%20character%20of%20the%20primacy%20of%20the%20Roman%20pontiff"]that chapter[/url] in its entirety, since it's relatively short, so that people can see the entire context.

[quote] Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

1. And so,
* supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
* adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
o the Roman pontiffs and of
o general councils,
* we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
* which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
o the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
o the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
+ the prince of the apostles,
+ true vicar of Christ,
+ head of the whole church and
+ father and teacher of all christian people.
o To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
+ tend,
+ rule and govern
+ the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
* Both clergy and faithful,
o of whatever rite and dignity,
o both singly and collectively,
* are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
o not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
o but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

[b]3. In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
[/b]
4. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
* this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that
* it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so
* they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

9. So, then,
* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
[/quote]

Papal primacy isn't meant to be some power grab, but follows because Jesus told Peter that He would build His Church* on Peter, and since it is necessary to be in the Church to completely follow Christ (as it makes no sense for Him to give us a Church otherwise), and that Church was built on Peter, then it follows that one must be under Peter to be in that Church. At least that's how I read this chapter, especially the part I bolded, though I admit I am not a scholar on this matter.

*quick note about the capitalisation - if I remember correctly the NT used all capital letters and no punctuation or spacing in the original manuscripts, and besides, each language has its own rules regarding capitalisation. So saying that the word "Church" wasn't capitalised in the original text is a non sequitur

God bless

Edited September 20, 2009 by Archaeology cat

[Selah]

I don't even know what to say anymore

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='19 September 2009 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1253404295' post='1969437']
Okay lets disregard my health statements as good works, I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying. Can you please qoute that interpretation on 2Tim 3:15-16 and what Bible its from?
Im not saying it doesnt exist I would just like to see it referenced.

Even so, you cannot answer us this question without going off subject, which is a red herring. So please tell us [u]WHO CHOSE WHICH BOOKS WERE WORTHY OF BELIEF? [/u]

Also please answer this scripture.

St. Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:15...."So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the [u]traditions [/u]which you were taught by us, [u]either by word of mouth or by letter[/u]."

And please no long post's on my behalf because Im asking simple questions and not posting huge documents or part of the catechism which I could do but refrain. Thank you.
[/quote]


Sacred.....I will try to respect your request for a short answer. However, I just noticed this blurb from Selah which I will briefly answer: She said

Storm, if the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, what did the early Christians do before the Bible was compiled?

ANSWER: The doctrine of sola scripture never said, either now or in the past, that the gospel was not preached orally before it was committed to writing! Your question betrays even the most elementary level understanding of what the doctrine is.

But as to Sacred's question, "JUST WHO CHOSE THE BOOKS?" I am assuming by this challenge, that you are holding to a particular infallible statement issued forth by the Catholic Church on this matter which would over-ride my response. Might I ask, to which you refer?

As it regards 2 Thess 2: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are holding to the general opinion that God's full revelation is incomplete if we do not hold to these (I say) "nebulous" traditions the Catholic Church bids us to adhere to? The epistle is written to the church at Thessolinica, and you think that Paul commanded them to preserve and pass on a body of unwritten traditions committed to their care. O.K. then, Sacred Heart. Where may I ask, ARE THEY?????? The fact of the matter is, if you say such a tradition was left in the care of the church at Thessolinica, everyone must agree that they failed, since there exists no extant unwritten apostolic traditions that have been left by them! In any case, in the context of 2 Thess, Paul is not alleging a dual mode of divine revelation!!! From the wider context, (2 Thess 2:1-12) we note that they were to stand fast to the traditions that had ALREADY been delivered to them and to hold to them in the face of eschatological apostacy and decpetion that would arise in future days. Thus, 2 Thess 2:15 signifies the two-fold apostolic METHOD of delivering the SAME doctrine, whether orally or in writing. There is not the slightest inference in this passage that the apostle's oral proclamations differed in substance from that which was delivered by written tradition. It simply does not follow that there remains any part of apostolic tradition that remains unwritten, especially given the fact that no single instance of it has ever been produced! Thus it is resolved: the traditions mentioned in this verse are in reference to the SAME message delivered in two different modes. The coordinating conjunction..."WHETHER/ OR" signifies the two-fold method of proclaiming the same doctrine, WHETHER it be orally, ORRRRR in writing.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Starets]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='20 September 2009 - 04:49 AM' timestamp='1253440176' post='1969569']
Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone. It means that Scripture is the final authority. It means that anything that is not contained in the Bible is heretical.
[color="#ff0000"]I'll say it again so this abysmal doctrine burns into your mind while you sleep and maybe God will cause you to vomit over it so the light of trusting in Christ ALONE for your salvation may shine through. You want me to believe in a supposedly "orally transmitted tradition"--- such as the doctrine of "papal subordination"----and that if I don't leave my brain at the Vatican doorstep, it's off in a handbasket I go, straight to hell as Vatican 1 CLEARLY pontificated. Would you like to read it for yourself?[/color][color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][i][font="Eras Demi ITC"][color="#800080"]"all of the faithful of Christ must believe that...the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world...and are bound by their duty of hierarchial subordination...to submit [to him]. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, [u]from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." [/u] (On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", chapter 3). Ludwig Ott affirms that "Dogmatic Faith" is the indispensable pre-requisite for the achieving of eternal salvation" [which are those things that are dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church such as papal subordination]. See pages 4-5 & 253 of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.[/color][/font][/i][color="#ff0000"][/color] [color="#ff0000"]
[color="#ff0000"][/color][/color][color="#ff0000"]I rebuke that filthy statement by reminding you that, "there is NO other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." (Ax 4:12). And that name AIN'T NO POPE! Catholicism is believing in another jesus and another gospel per 2 Cor 11:4.[/color]


[/quote]

Papal Subordination, as you call it, has nothing to do with the Pope being "another name whereby we must be saved". It also has nothing to do with checking your brain at the door of the Vatican. It is also not just some orally transmitted tradition. It is based very solidly on Scripture. Nevertheless, it should really be addressed as a separate topic and not as part of this topic.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='18 September 2009 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1253317017' post='1968889']
Mr. Kolbe, (since I can't pronounce a word beginning with an ML)

Why don't you walk into any Christian bookstore and pick up a commentary on this verse. There you will note that the seat of Moses refers to a seat in front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading from the S. Are you aware that synagougue worship materialized LONG after Moses' day? It did. Thus, your attempt to make this an oral tradition going back to Moses is nothing but wishful thinking---and you may now eliminate it from your arsenal to support unnamed, extra-biblical traditions being on the same "God-breathed" authority as Holy Writ.
[/quote]
Hi Storm-

that was kinda my point.. there were no Christian bookstores, nor a biblical commentary to 'pick up', but in Jesus's day. The traditon of Moses's seat was only communicated orally, and was found no where in the OT. Jesus teaches from this oral tradition, telling his followers to do as the say. No one said "Jesus, the Chair of Moses is no were in the OT", no... everyone KNEW of it as it was part of the deposit of faith, just in oral form. Thus, Jesus had no problem with extra biblical traditions of God. [color="#FF0000"]If Jesus was teaching Sola Scriptura, why choose an extra biblical tradition and announce it valid?[/color]

Also, any comments on my lengthy reply to your lengthy reply? lol...You are probably busy with alot of replies, so no pressure, just want to make sure you saw it.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='sacredheartandbloodofjesus' date='18 September 2009 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1253323014' post='1968924']
Why would you give him advice to go get a commentary on this verse considering that is a traditional translation of the verse done by a man. Hmm.. I smell hypocrisy.

"There you will note that the seat of Moses refers to a seat in front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading from the S."

Nobody would have known this without the traditions of men to teach us, even you told him to get the commentary. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Telling someone to simply go and check a commentary to substantiate an historical fact, is not in the same category as substantiating an orally transmitted tradition that must be held with equal respect to the word of the living God!

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='20 September 2009 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1253467482' post='1969688']
Hi Storm-

that was kinda my point.. there were no Christian bookstores, nor a biblical commentary to 'pick up', but in Jesus's day. The traditon of Moses's seat was only communicated orally, and was found no where in the OT. Jesus teaches from this oral tradition, telling his followers to do as the say. No one said "Jesus, the Chair of Moses is no were in the OT", no... everyone KNEW of it as it was part of the deposit of faith, just in oral form. Thus, Jesus had no problem with extra biblical traditions of God. [color="#ff0000"]If Jesus was teaching Sola Scriptura, why choose an extra biblical tradition and announce it valid?[/color]

Also, any comments on my lengthy reply to your lengthy reply? lol...You are probably busy with alot of replies, so no pressure, just want to make sure you saw it.
[/quote]

Mr. Kolbe....I have not forgotten you. Please allow me the luxury of going in my jacuzzi for now and I will attempt to get to you by the end of the day.

[eagle_eye222001]

I think it would be wise to point out that Tradition is not on trial here, and rather sola scriptura is on trial given the title of the thread. I would be open to a debate on the papacy in another thread, however sola scriptura needs to be proven so the Protestant should be arguing in the affirmative and the Catholic in the negative. I've seen a mix debate on Tradition and we need to stay on topic.

Even if the Bible claims sola scriptura, that alone doesn't prove it. If I have a book that just claims something, one should not just believe it blindly.

The Church Fathers when examined do uphold Scripture and the Word of God, however, they never ultimately say "Bible alone."

Stormstopper,

Ultimately why is the Bible the sole authority? We've seen plenty of evidence that has been debated, however we have yet to see anything clearly say "Bible alone."

Edited September 20, 2009 by eagle_eye222001

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='20 September 2009 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1253468319' post='1969697']
Mr. Kolbe....I have not forgotten you. Please allow me the luxury of going in my jacuzzi for now and I will attempt to get to you by the end of the day.
[/quote]
I understand. enjoy your jacuzzi.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Staretz' date='20 September 2009 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1253466740' post='1969679']
Papal Subordination, as you call it, has nothing to do with the Pope being "another name whereby we must be saved". It also has nothing to do with checking your brain at the door of the Vatican. It is also not just some orally transmitted tradition. It is based very solidly on Scripture. Nevertheless, it should really be addressed as a separate topic and not as part of this topic.
[/quote]



[font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]Star....I freely admit that it would be unfair to assert that Catholicism is advocating that there is literally another "name" by which we must be saved, but they [u]are[/u] in essense steering our allegiance and eternal destinies into the [i]custody [/i]of a mere mortal--"whereby we must be saved". If this allegiance is not met, they say our salvation is lost. Despite your protest, I would argue it does indeed involve checking your brains at the Vatican doorstep because they, as well as you, are saying this "submission"--- naturally flows from the biblical text. Since they assert that private interpretation is off limits, but that the interpreation of S has officially been left in the lap of the Magisterium, "checking our brains in with the Vatican hat-check girl" may be a crude way of saying it, but it is a true assessment nonetheless. You say that papal subordination is "NOT JUST SOME ORALLY TRANSMITTED TRADITION". "Not just" meaning, that we should surely find this tradition somewhere mentioned in the early fathers???? Excuse me, but it doesn't exist there and you know it, so your sentence should more accurately read, "Even though papal subordination is ABSENT from the tradition of the fathers, we feel it is solidly based on Scripture.". Wouldn't you agree that's a more pinpointed assessment of truth? If you deny it, then kindly produce your evidence of even one person believing in this tradition anywhere from the year 1 thruuuu the 1870's when this despicable doctrine was introduced for the first time to the shock of the Christian world. Moreover, the evidence for a papacy is completely absent from Scripture (most telling is it's NONE-mention in the list of church offices where they ARE mentioned) and is based on the most thinnest of implications and at best, is exegetically flimsey.[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/size][/font]

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='20 September 2009 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1253469253' post='1969710']
I think it would be wise to point out that Tradition is not on trial here, and rather sola scriptura is on trial given the title of the thread. I would be open to a debate on the papacy in another thread, however sola scriptura needs to be proven so the Protestant should be arguing in the affirmative and the Catholic in the negative. I've seen a mix debate on Tradition and we need to stay on topic.

Even if the Bible claims sola scriptura, that alone doesn't prove it. If I have a book that just claims something, one should not just believe it blindly.

The Church Fathers when examined do uphold Scripture and the Word of God, however, they never ultimately say "Bible alone."

Stormstopper,

Ultimately why is the Bible the sole authority? We've seen plenty of evidence that has been debated, however we have yet to see anything clearly say "Bible alone."
[/quote]


[font="Arial"][size="2"]I think it would be wise to point out that Tradition is not on trial here, and rather sola scriptura is on trial given the title of the thread.[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]Eagle Eye.....the debate between sola scriptura vs. an orally transmitted deposit of the faith, are two sides of the same coin. Each one is a logical [u]denial[/u] of the other. I have ruthlessly brought up the one example of "hierarchial subordination" as an example of just exactly what type of traditions the Roman Catholic Church is talking about when she bids us to ditch S as being both materially and formally insufficient to the believer. If these traditions merely consisted of facing east when praying, as a personal preference as some of the fathers suggest, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. But these are traditions that the Catholic Church are mandating as [u]salvific[/u], which I submit is fatal to the gospel. So the mention of this papal requirement is tangenital, but necessary.[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]
Even if the Bible claims sola scriptura, that alone doesn't prove it. If I have a book that just claims something, one should not just believe it blindly. [color="#ff0000"]You are correct. One should not just believe anything blindly as so many on these threads are prone to do by the one sentence declaration of another. As for the Bible, I contend that the doctrine of sola scriptura is indeed found implicity in its pages. That being said, you are now bringing up the trustworthiness of the Scriptures themselves, and just because it CLAIMS to be the word of God, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Well, the Bible is the only book wherein its main object; namely the Creator of the Universe, realizes we are a stubborn and stiff-necked people, but will actually PROVE He is God over against any and all imposters, by doing something no man could ever do: namely, [u]predict the future with 100% accuracy [/u](Deut 18:21-2, Isa 31:21-23, 42:8-9, 44:6-8, 45:20, 48:3-7, 48:12,14). Once we believe in His credibility, not to mention His claims of being Creator which is OBVIOUS by looking at the world around us, we then believe His word. And in that record, we note that He has magnified His word, even above His very name (Ps 138:2). Therefore, the doctrine of sola scriptura must logically follow.[/color]

The Church Fathers when examined do uphold Scripture and the Word of God, however, they never ultimately say "Bible alone." [color="#ff0000"]I'll quote Athanaius again to repeat my contention that his view is representative of this universal patristic principle:[/color][color="#ff0000"][/color] [color="#ff0000"]"THESE ARE THE FOUNTAINS OF SALVATION, THAT THEY WHO THIRST MAY BE SATISFIED WITH THE LIVING WORDS THAT THEY CONTAIN. [u]IN THESE ALONE[/u] IS PROCLAIMED THE DOCTRINE OF GODLINESS" (NPNF2, Vol 4, Letters of Athanatius, 1. Festal Letters, Letter 29). [/color][color="#ff0000"][/color][color="#ff0000"]If the early fathers were always endeavoring to prove their opinions from the text itself---personally, privately or publically, that ipso facto means that the Scriptures are more clear than the writings and commentaries of the fathers themselves! For no one ever proves what is unknown, by what is still yet more unknown (like an unwritten tradition).[/color]

Ultimately why is the Bible the sole authority? We've seen plenty of evidence that has been debated, however we have yet to see anything clearly say "Bible alone." [color="#ff0000"]Does not the example of Jesus hold any sway over you? He literally lived and breathed Scripture, as the 4 gospel accounts make absolutely undebatable. If He could hold TOWNSFOLK culpable for their ignorance of S, and He summoned it into service as the ultimate and sufficient source to correct and refute the opponents of His day, then its supreme authority in doctrinal matters should remain unquestioned. Selah repeatedly lambasted me for quoting the fathers who were utilizing S in the VERY MANNER WE SEE JESUS CHRIST USING IT; to combat the naysayers, and she obnoxiously asserted that using S in combat was no reason to suppse that was to be pivotal in the man of God's arsenal. However, the outfit described in Ephesians 6 (the shield of faith, etc...) INCLUDES the word of God which is the sword of the Spirit, and "is able to to quench all the firey darts of the wicked"......and no where do we find "tradition" listed among the ammunition we need in the battles ahead. [/color]


[/size][/font]

[Selah]

[quote]Selah.....if I had an apartment to rent and I knew what I know about you just as it pertains to this thread, I would not hesitate to have you as my tenant. So when I called you either "a liar, or a dishonest person, or someone who was just plain 'ol irresponsible", I can look beyond a person's shortcomings because I probably have more than you. I know it is offensive to human nature to be corrected, but we all have to be open to correction. Now when I asked you to please categorize yourself as either being a liar or someone who was just plain 'ol irresponsible, this is merely the logical conclusion I must arrive at in view of the fact that you didn't include any evidence for your position. Now I see after I said this, you have provided some quotes. But at the time, you demanded evidence, I gave it, and you did not in your answer, nor did you give any indication that you would. It's not a "hateful attitude" as you suggested, it was an honest assesment of your reply.
Now, I didn't need to actually read the links because I told you I had the entire quotes of these men, in their wider context right in front of me![/quote]


I did present you with evidence my friend. Several posts worth. What I object to as “hateful” is not necessarily your calling me a liar (which is laughable, because I did give you evidence and researched exactly where those quotes came from and gave you the sources, did I not? So I most certainly did not lie, nor am I dishonest. And I am certainly not irresponsible, because I did make sure I did the research and cited the sources. What I do object to is your arrogant attitude, acting as if you know everything about this, when clearly you do not. I provided you with the full essays and what went right along with those quotes you gave me. You are also incredibly emotional. My goodness, Storm, this is a debate. We are both adults here, we can speak calmly to each other, no matter how wrong we find each other. Keep your emotions at the door and have an actual conversation with me. Okay? Because I could get really upset at some of the things you are saying here, but I haven’t once have I?

But I’m not here to speak to you on debate etiquette, so let’s leave that for another thread.




[quote]There you go again, insulting every true Christian believer by capatilizing the "C" in church, which the Bible NO WHERE does, and promoting it to mean the Roman Catholic Church in particular. How dare you do this! Have you no shame? [/quote]

The Bible doesn’t say a lot of things…like for instance, it doesn’t say that it is the pillar and foundation of our faith…it does say the Church is though.

As for the Catholic Church…

“Wherever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” - St. Ignatius of Antioch. Did I mention he was a disciple of Saint John? By the way, other Church fathers called the Church the Catholic Church as well. Just thought you should know! This is a man you claim is Sola Scriptura. So why then does he acknowledge the authority of the Church here and elsewhere in his works? Can you tell me?

[quote]Now you have the utter gaul to go on and on about all these people recognizing the "Church" as the final authority[/quote]

Again with the emotional outbursts. Honestly, if you were on the debate team at high school, you would have been thrown out. Yes, the Church is the final authority, as recognized by St. Peter, St. Paul, the Church Fathers, etc.

[quote]Really now? As usual you are all talk and no action, since your assertion cannot be backed up[/quote]
All I have been doing is talking

[quote]
I didn't take ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. I quoted them directly to demonstrate that they were looking to a single authority to form their theology....[/quote]

And I gave you the essays that came with those quotes and included what you left out. What more do you want from me?


[quote]You are indeed a pip! I have no problem WHATSOEVER letting history speak for itself. You simply cannot deal with the fact that virtually all of these men were practicing sola scriptura in principle, and you are doing everything in your power to wish it away. [/quote]

But if they were practicing Sola Scriptura, there would be no need for the authority of the Church. There would be no need for Apostolic tradition and of course, the office of Pope. I am able to admit that many of the Church Fathers looked to the Bible as enough evidence to refute heretics and even say that it contained all we need to know for salvation. But that does not make it final authority. If they were truley Sola Scriptura, as we interpret it today, they would see no need for Bishops, Priests, etc. It means that they saw it as the inspired Word of God. Nothing more, nothing less.


Your post is very long, and unfortunately I must rush back to work, as my break is nearly over. I may answer some more afterwards.

Blessings!

Selah

Edited September 20, 2009 by Selah

[eagle_eye222001]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]I think it would be wise to point out that Tradition is not on trial here, and rather sola scriptura is on trial given the title of the thread.[/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"][color="#ff0000"]Eagle Eye.....the debate between sola scriptura vs. an orally transmitted deposit of the faith, are two sides of the same coin. Each one is a logical [u]denial[/u] of the other. I have ruthlessly brought up the one example of "hierarchial subordination" as an example of just exactly what type of traditions the Roman Catholic Church is talking about when she bids us to ditch S as being both materially and formally insufficient to the believer. If these traditions merely consisted of facing east when praying, as a personal preference as some of the fathers suggest, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. But these are traditions that the Catholic Church are mandating as [u]salvific[/u], which I submit is fatal to the gospel. So the mention of this papal requirement is tangenital, but necessary.[/color][/size][/font]

[color="#0000FF"]Not if you are proving sola scriptura from a positive angle. Proving sola scriptura on the denial of something else does not legitimize sola scriptura. Basically, sola scriptura should be able to be proven from an affirmative argument.[/color]


[font="Arial"][size="2"][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]
Even if the Bible claims sola scriptura, that alone doesn't prove it. If I have a book that just claims something, one should not just believe it blindly. [color="#ff0000"]You are correct. One should not just believe anything blindly as so many on these threads are prone to do by the one sentence declaration of another. As for the Bible, I contend that the doctrine of sola scriptura is indeed found implicity in its pages. That being said, you are now bringing up the trustworthiness of the Scriptures themselves, and just because it CLAIMS to be the word of God, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Well, the Bible is the only book wherein its main object; namely the Creator of the Universe, realizes we are a stubborn and stiff-necked people, but will actually PROVE He is God over against any and all imposters, by doing something no man could ever do: namely, [u]predict the future with 100% accuracy [/u](Deut 18:21-2, Isa 31:21-23, 42:8-9, 44:6-8, 45:20, 48:3-7, 48:12,14). Once we believe in His credibility, not to mention His claims of being Creator which is OBVIOUS by looking at the world around us, we then believe His word. And in that record, we note that He has magnified His word, even above His very name (Ps 138:2). Therefore, the doctrine of sola scriptura must logically follow.[/color]

[color="#0000FF"]I contend the papacy,Mary, and others is implicit in the Bible as well but you would say no.

Below are the verses you cited for the credibility/

Deut 18:21-22
21 'You may be privately wondering, "How are we to tell that a prophecy does not come from Yahweh?"
22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh and the thing does not happen and the word is not fulfilled, then it has not been said by Yahweh. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. You have nothing to fear from him.'

Isaiah 31:21-23

Uh, this chapter has 9 verses. I'm guessing you got the wrong chapter.

Isaiah 42:8-9

8 I am Yahweh, that is my name! I shall not yield my glory to another, nor my honour to idols.
9 See how the former predictions have come true. Fresh things I now reveal; before they appear I tell you of them.

Isaiah 44:6-8

6 Thus says Yahweh, Israel's king, Yahweh Sabaoth, his redeemer: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God except me.
7 Who is like me? Let him call out, let him affirm it and convince me it is so; let him say what has been happening since I instituted an eternal people, and predict to them what will happen next!
8 Have no fear, do not be afraid: have I not told you and revealed it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God except me? There is no Rock; I know of none.

Isaiah 45:20

20 Assemble, come, all of you gather round, survivors of the nations. They have no knowledge, those who parade their wooden idols and pray to a god that cannot save.

Isaiah 48:3-7

3 Things now past I revealed long ago, they issued from my mouth, I proclaimed them; suddenly I acted and they happened.
4 For I knew you to be obstinate, your neck an iron sinew and your forehead bronze.
5 As I told you about it long before, before it happened I revealed it to you, so that you could not say, 'My statue did it, my idol, my metal image, ordained this.'
6 You have heard and seen all this, why won't you admit it? Now I am going to reveal new things to you, secrets that you do not know;
7 they have just been created, not long ago, and until today you have heard nothing about them, so that you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew about this.'

Isaiah 48:12-14

12 Listen to me, Jacob, Israel whom I have called: I, and none else, am the first, I am also the last.
13 My hand laid the foundations of earth and my right hand spread out the heavens. I summon them and they all present themselves together.
14 Assemble, all of you, and listen; which of them has revealed this? Yahweh loves him; he will do his pleasure on Babylon and the race of the Chaldaeans;


Okay, after going through your citations, I don't see how this helps your argument. It's all a lot of talk and pretty much no evidence (or vague if at all) of God's credibility.
[/color]


The Church Fathers when examined do uphold Scripture and the Word of God, however, they never ultimately say "Bible alone." [color="#ff0000"]I'll quote Athanaius again to repeat my contention that his view is representative of this universal patristic principle:[/color][color="#ff0000"][/color] [color="#ff0000"]"THESE ARE THE FOUNTAINS OF SALVATION, THAT THEY WHO THIRST MAY BE SATISFIED WITH THE LIVING WORDS THAT THEY CONTAIN. [u]IN THESE ALONE[/u] IS PROCLAIMED THE DOCTRINE OF GODLINESS" (NPNF2, Vol 4, Letters of Athanatius, 1. Festal Letters, Letter 29). [/color][color="#ff0000"][/color][color="#ff0000"]If the early fathers were always endeavoring to prove their opinions from the text itself---personally, privately or publically, that ipso facto means that the Scriptures are more clear than the writings and commentaries of the fathers themselves! For no one ever proves what is unknown, by what is still yet more unknown (like an unwritten tradition).[/color]

[color="#0000FF"]
Sorry but that doesn't tell me what books should be in the Bible and it doesn't say sola scriptura. This the best the Church Fathers supposedly wrote on sola scriptura? It's kinda murky. Does "Living Words" only mean written word necessarily?

[/color]

Ultimately why is the Bible the sole authority? We've seen plenty of evidence that has been debated, however we have yet to see anything clearly say "Bible alone." [color="#ff0000"]Does not the example of Jesus hold any sway over you? He literally lived and breathed Scripture, as the 4 gospel accounts make absolutely undebatable. If He could hold TOWNSFOLK culpable for their ignorance of S, and He summoned it into service as the ultimate and sufficient source to correct and refute the opponents of His day, then its supreme authority in doctrinal matters should remain unquestioned. Selah repeatedly lambasted me for quoting the fathers who were utilizing S in the VERY MANNER WE SEE JESUS CHRIST USING IT; to combat the naysayers, and she obnoxiously asserted that using S in combat was no reason to suppse that was to be pivotal in the man of God's arsenal. However, the outfit described in Ephesians 6 (the shield of faith, etc...) INCLUDES the word of God which is the sword of the Spirit, and "is able to to quench all the firey darts of the wicked"......and no where do we find "tradition" listed among the ammunition we need in the battles ahead. [/color][/size][/font]

[color="#0000FF"]Yes Jesus referenced Scripture. Yes he used it in an authoritative way. I accept the authority of Scripture, however for different reasons than you. Also, he did not ever say "sola scriptura" and he did not tell his Apostles and disciples to write everything down so that others may believe what had been written down. There was an emphasis on preaching, speaking, etc. Word of God also is not limited to Scripture alone.


You still have not shown sola scriptura explicitly. Even if sola scriptura is implicit, how do we know which books belong in the Bible and who determined that? I am sure you would agree the Bible did not just fall from the sky but rather it was gathered together in the 400s or so.

[/color]

----------------
Listening to: [url=http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/norbertine+fathers+of+st.+michaels+abbey/track/tract+-+vinea+facta+est]Norbertine Fathers of St. Michael's Abbey - Tract - Vinea Facta Est[/url]

----------------
Listening to: [url=http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/norbertine+fathers+of+st.+michaels+abbey/track/tract+-+attende+coelum]Norbertine Fathers of St. Michael's Abbey - Tract - Attende Coelum[/url]

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

"JUST WHO CHOSE THE BOOKS?" Storms words which he claimed were mine and put quatations around them.

"WHO CHOSE WHICH BOOKS WERE WORTHY OF BELIEF?" these are my exact words to be quoted not the above. Please dont change my words storm and quote them as if I said them. Thank you.

And eagle eye is right this debate is on sola scriptura not sacred tradition. Eagle eyes words... "Proving sola scriptura on the denial of something else does not legitimize sola scriptura. Basically, sola scriptura should be able to be proven from an affirmative argument." I echo these exact same words.