SCRIPTURE ALONE ("SOLA SCRIPTURA")

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html ^ | John Salza

[spunkets]

"We have no proof that he talked to Peter, an eyewitness. Paul was not an eyewitness."

We have evidence. Luke was an associate of Paul and all 3 were in Rome at the same time. Paul knew Peter after Paul's conversion, so the eyewitness part is irrelevant. Peter would have heard about the account of Paul's encounter with God, and the would have discussed it along with many other things.

[Rutles4Ever]

For the entire Christian world to be ignorant of Mary's supposed bodily assumption into heaven for 400 years defies belief.

For the entire Christian world to be ignorant of the inexistence of Purgatory for 1500 years is even more incredible.

Christ's bodily assumption into heaven was believed immediately by all those who had been given faith in Him.

Chapter and verse please?

[blue-duncan]

"In any event, the point I was trying to make is that neither Paul nor Luke ever "knew" Jesus during His lifetime."

You don't know that. Paul was a student at the school of Gamaliel in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus ministry and could very well have heard Him teach. He was present, along with other members of the Sanhedren, at the stoning of Stephen soon after the ascension. He met Jesus in person on the road to Damascus and knew enough about Jesus to recognize Him as Lord and the claims He had on Paul's life. He was taken in the spirit up into heaven and was an eyewitness to the glory that awaits believers. His tesimony is not hearsay for he does not build on another's foundation as does Peter.

[hosepipe]

[ Sola Scriptura is about as Biblical as what the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses believe. ]

You protest too much.. that makes you a protestant..

[wagglebee]

I don't disagree with anything you said. My overall point was that whether or not Paul was familiar with Jesus while He was alive, Paul certainly was not an Apostle or Disciple prior to the conversion on the road to Damascus.

[pjr12345]

My overall point was that whether or not Paul was familiar with Jesus while He was alive

Let's be sure: Jesus IS alive!

[Rutles4Ever]

Peter would have heard about the account of Paul's encounter with God, and the would have discussed it along with many other things.

Would they have? It is generally accepted that Peter related the Gospel through his assistant, Mark. If Luke indeed spoke with Peter and received his eyewitness account, why do the details vary between his Gospel and Mark's regarding the Institution of the Eucharist (22:15-21)), of the Trials (22:66-71, 23: 4-16), and of the details of the Crucifixion (23: 34, 39-43, 46)? I'm not saying that there aren't similarities in structure between those two Gospels, but God is in the details. It's likely that Luke, if he knew Peter, knew Mark as well, and was influenced in some part by that text. It might be that, since Luke was writing to the Gentiles, there were other elements of Jesus' ministry that he felt necessary to emphasize over others that might be edifying to the Jews. But it doesn't explain the differences if both were using Peter as witness...

[ScubieNuc]

Prior to Wycliffe and Tyndale, it was a crime to translate the scriptures into the vernacular of the laity.

Wow! A crime! That's an eye opener. What was the reason that the Scriptures were supposed to be kept in Latin or Greek or whatever?

[Aquinasfan]

According to II Timothy 3:14-17, what else besides "Scripture" did Paul say was beneficial or profitable for doctrine, correction, exhortation and instruction ...? What else? Anything else?

1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Finally, Paul upheld the value of Sacred Tradition.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

And according to Jesus,

Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Synthesizing these verses, we see that the Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture are the three pillars of faith. As a historical matter, the Church preceded the Scriptures in time, and so gave birth to the Scriptures, writing, canonizing and preserving them.

Luther's incoherent doctrine of "the Bible alone" didn't appear until 1500 years after Christ's death and resurection.

[blue-duncan]

"So why didn't they write about the Ascension in their letters?"

Paul did write about the ascension. In fact he saw the risen Lord in person on the road to Damascus.

Eph. 1:19-21, "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:"

Eph. 4:8-10, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)"

[wagglebee]

See what I just wrote in #285. Luke was, if I remember correctly, a Syrian from Antioch; however, it is not unreasonable to think that his travels would have taken him to Jerusalem. I don't think there is any need to "split hairs" over this, since there is no disputing the fact that Paul was not a follower or supporter of the Lord during His lifetime and there is no reason to believe that Luke was either (although Luke did not share Paul's hatred of Christians).

[wagglebee]

Let's be sure: Jesus IS alive!

Forgive my poor choice of words. Obviously, I meant the Lord's lifetime prior to the Crucifixion.

[hosepipe]

[ Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. ]

Not so.. sola scriptura presupposes the Holy Spirit sent to lead one into all truth.. which is the logos or scripture.. A printed bible can only help.. Because even having a bible requires the holy spirit to teach it.. Because that is why Jesus left the Holy Spirit on earth.. After all some could not read even if they had a bible in whatever language..

The Holy Spirit was not sent to confirm tradition or ceremony or one sect over another.. but the logos or even the rhema..

[blue-duncan]

"Forgive my poor choice of words. Obviously, I meant the Lord's lifetime prior to the Crucifixion."


Not to worry, we have debated long enough that I know what you meant.

[Uncle Chip]

Where does Paul refer to his own writings as "Scripture"? These were letters to the churches.

II Peter 3:15-16 --- Peter refers to Paul's writings as "Scripture". You remember Peter, don't you? Is his testimony acceptable to you?

"Scripture" as Paul could only have known it referred to the Old Testament.

not according to II Peter 3:15-16.

He couldn't have possibly known that his letters would become part of something called "the New Testament" some 300 years later.

Are you a mindreader. How do you know what he knew? were you sitting on his shoulder?

Those who received the letters of Paul, Peter, John, ... recognized them for what they were --- Scripture. They met all the requirements and when they were used for doctrine, correction, exhortation, instruction ... --- they profited from them. They did what Paul said they would do, time and time again, just like now. Your misconception has been corrected by Scripture. Your welcome.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Drop me off this discussion, please. I posted my pieces earlier, and that was enough for me. Thanks!

[P-Marlowe]

What was the reason that the Scriptures were supposed to be kept in Latin or Greek or whatever?

Because the Catholic Church had "the keys." They locked up the "mysteries of scripture" from the laity. The Catholic church clearly did not use the keys to unlock the kingdom of God, but to shut it up.

(Matthew 23:13 KJV) But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

It literally took a reformation to unlock the kingdom and to return the scriptures to the laity. They had removed the wine from laity in the sacraments and they had removed the scripture from the laity in their worship.

Thank God the gates of hell did not prevail against the true church and God sent Luther and Calvin and Zwingi and Wycliffe and Tyndale and other brave and noble Christians to rescue the scriptures from the Nicolaitans and present it once again as God's gift to the Body of Christ, the community of true believers in Christ.

O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. (Psalms 119:97-106 KJV)

[Uncle Chip]

the Church preceded the Scriptures in time

Not so. The OT Scriptures prophesied of a Messiah who the Gentiles would embrace and that He would take out of them a people for His Name. And the apostles taught out of those OT scriptures from Pentecost onward. The scriptures thus preceded the Church.

[Rutles4Ever]

Paul was not present at the Ascension of Jesus. He saw the Lord in His glory, as did Stephen, but he wasn't referring to the actual event as an eyewitness. The whole point is, just because the Assumption wasn't written about by those who discovered her body was gone doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again, the implication is that everyone at Chalcedon was a liar and a heretic. Further, given that the Assumption of Mary was not an issue challenged by schismatics of the day, there's no logical reason they would just make it up out of whole cloth.

[wagglebee]

As I said in post #257, I do not disagree with you on this point at all. I was only responding about neither Paul nor (presumably, but we don't actually know for certain) Luke being followers of Christ prior to the Resurrection.

I have no idea how anyone would think that Paul and Luke were writing and evangelizing four hundred years after the Resurrection. We are in no disagreement here. Everything I have ever seen puts Paul's conversion a few years after the Resurrection (and Catholic, Orthodox and other traditions celebrate the date of the Road to Damascus Conversion as being today, January 25th), Luke's conversion is never discussed but he was obviously a Christian early enough to travel with Paul. As I said, these are historical facts, confirmed by scripture and tradition, I am unaware of any scholarly disagreement over them. Four hundred years after the Pentecost, Christianity was the dominant religion of much of the Mediterranean region -- the Gospel had already spread.