Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

They compiled books which CLAIMED to be written by those people. Some were certainly authentic; others were not. Some were "caught" and weeded out in the lifetime of the apostles; others were not. The issue was not settled in the 1st century, or in the 2nd, or even in the 3rd; it wasn't until the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the 3rd Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)--almost into the 5th century A.D., and well after all of the Apostles had died.

Take some time to study Hippo ..you will see that they had no intention of developing an "offical cannon " and it was a far different church than Roman Catholism

The books of scripture were used long before THE LOCAL COUNCIL Hippo ..all the canon was in use in the various Bishopricks with different ares using slightly different canons

Pauls epistles ARE CALLED scripture in the scriptures.. so the apostolic age church recognized the letters as scripture and the gospels as the gospel ..Paul called Lukes writing scripture.. so long before Hippo scripture was recognized as inspired and used to teach the church

The 27 books of the NT were never listed until Nicæa and even then they were simply LISTED ..there are no records from Hippo remaining ...other LOCAL councils chose the books they would use

No Rome did not give us "the Bible.. It did not even think it was worth having a canon until Luther

[RnMomof7]

So where does Romanism get its authority ...without that answer .. it is “simply blowing smoke “

[CynicalBear]

>>Some/many have that right now..<<

In an unquenchable fire? I would like to see proof of that.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Old enough to know that I wouldn’t like to ‘live’ forever without a body, thirsty, in a dry, dark place that has no water, and smells of burning sulphur.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Okay... so... granting that point, for the sake of argument: can you progress to the SECOND portion of my question (which you didn’t include in your quote)?

[eagleone]
That is the point. There's nothing in Scripture you can solidly point to and say here is the immacualte conception.

And again, I'll ask: SO WHAT? Unless you're claiming that "it must be in the Bible to be true", then you have no case at all. (That, and we'll have to delete the quadratic formula, Fermat's Last Theorem, the atomic number of Uranium, etc., from all our textbooks, since the Bible doesn't mention them.)

We can do that on other points of Christianity. For example, how is one saved. John 3:15-16 gives us the answer. It's clear.

Of course, it's clear! One is saved by persevering to the end (Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13), as Our Lord Jesus said, Himself.

Or, rather, one is saved by Baptism (1 Peter 3:21)!

Or, rather, one is saved by...

Do you see my point? Any approach to Scripture which says "It's nothing but ___!" has a high risk of being wrong; the Bible is too rich and organically connected to boil down to a few verses of "Bible Bingo" or alleged "proof texts". When all the requirements and possibilities for salvation are compiled, it looks an awful lot like the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, take the catholic way at interpresting Scripture from an allegorical perspective, which is how the IC and assumption came to be defined. And no, there isn't a verse on that, but there doesn't need to be. A reading of the text tells us what we need to know, especially when you keep it in context.

Ah, but that would be a violation of "sola Scriptura!" If your opinion isn't in Scripture, then your own standards insist that I not believe you... right? There DOES need to be a clear passage of Scripture which teaches your opinion, or else (thanks to your adherence to sola Scriptura) you have no basis for saying that it's true. You can talk about "context" until you're blue in the face... but unless the context teaches exactly what you claim it teaches, you're done. Otherwise, the rallying cry of "context, context" can be nothing more than a sort of "magical incantation" by which someone dismisses anything he doesn't like, or anything with which he doesn't agree.

The whole arugment of Mary being the new Eve is what drives a lot of this. It's a nice thought, but scripturally we have nothing that tells us that Mary is the New Eve.

Nothing? The very same Fathers of the Church, whom RnMomOf7 (the OP) thinks are authoritative enough to cite as supports for "sola Scriptura" (though she misinterprets them badly), disagree with you strongly! Go and read their accounts of the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve (and as the New Ark of the Covenant); they quote Scripture left and right, and the connections are stunning!

It's also eisogesis....reading something into Scripture that isn't there.

Well... with all due respect: I've heard anti-Catholic-Church people use the word "eisegesis" (4th letter = "e") as a sort of "incantation" to dismiss any interpretation which they happen not to like. When used like that, it's a simple "self-sealing argument" (i.e. a textbook fallacy--akin to saying, "Everyone's out to get me! Of course they won't admit it, and they're all good at hiding it; what do you expect?" There's no argument that can't be countered by it... but there's no compelling evidence for the original claim, either. Claims of eisegesis have to be proven (and that's rather difficult, at times), not simply claimed.

Catholics do this with John 21:25. Just because not everything Jesus ever did was written down do we begin to assume he did other things. This is partly the justification for the assumption.

I've never heard John 21:25 cited as evidence for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (and it'd be a bit silly, since Jesus wasn't on Earth when the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven; St. John was almost certainly alive when it happened, but it seems likely that he was referencing Jesus' earthly ministry in John 21:25... not events which were decades in the future). I *have* heard John 21:25 used (and rightly so) to rebuke the silly idea that "if it isn't in the Bible, no believer is bound to believe it"! The Bible never pretends to be all-inclusive of revealed truth... and the idea of "Bible alone" literally came out of *nowhere*, for no logical reason (and probably for the illogical reason of saying "anything but the Catholic Church!").

For example, the Mormons could claim this verse to justify their belief that Jesus appeared to the Indians in North America. Is there anything in Scripture saying He didn't? No. Is there anything in Scripture that said He did? No. So from the Mormon perspective they can claim He did because we can't prove He didn't.

That's true, up to a point... but even that good point has one strong limitation: neither the LDS nor the Catholic Church use the false idea of "sola Scriptura"... and so long as sola Scriptura is false, no one need worry about falling afoul of it. No, we're not free to conjure up just ANYTHING; it can't CONTRADICT the Scriptures, for one thing, and it should have reasonable EXTERNAL evidence, in order to entertain the idea in the first place. I, for example, could only reasonably assume that there's a live chicken in my attic if I get at least some *evidence* (of my senses, from reliable testimony, etc.) that there is, in fact, a chicken in the attic. The way you talk here, you sound as if Catholics invented the idea of Mary's Assumption on a pure lark, with no historical or testimonial evidence at all!

BTW...I am not a Mormon and totally disagree with their postions.

All right. (I'm not LDS, either, and I disagree with many of their positions, as well.) But again: the Bible isn't the only reason to believe something to be true (e.g. the coronation of Charlemegne, Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, etc.), nor does the Bible make any claim to that effect. So why are you insisting on something which the Bible doesn't demand (which, ironically, makes sola Scriptura invalid in the eyes of sola Scriptura)? We, at least, have Church History to testify to the death of St. Joseph, the end of Blessed Mary's earthly life (it's unknown whether she died or not, before being assumed); you have nothing, whatever, to demonstrate "SOLA Scriptura". You've demonstrated the IMPORTANCE of Scriptura, but no one has shown why SOLA should be attached to it.

This is what catholicism has done with the assumption. We have no record of Mary dying. We don't have record of Joseph dying either for that matter. Was he assumed also? Did Mary die? We don't know; but odds are pretty high she did. Was she taken up before she died? We don't know. We have no solid evidence she was or wasn't. It's a nice thought, but it is not supported by Scripture. None of the apostles wrote about it. John didn't address it and his Gospel is the last one written. We have no eyewitnesses to it.

Again: the fact that the Bible doesn't testify to it says nothing, one way or the other. If the Bible is silent, then we either rely on other trustworthy evidence, or we investigate to see if evidence can be found, or we abandon the idea. For anyone to say, "The Assumption never happened, since it isn't mentioned in the Bible" is simply not logical; it would have been logical to say, "The Bible explicitly says that Mary was never assumed, but her body corrupted in the grave!"--except for the fact that the Bible says no such thing. There are hints about the Assumption in the Bible (e.g. the woman "having a place prepared for her in the desert"--Revelation 12:6, the fact that two assumptions had already happened, with Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-12), etc.), but the lion's share of information comes from the Church Fathers, who spoke of the Assumption as if it were long-established fact... and no one started screaming, "What! Unbiblical! How dare you introduce this novelty!" It's a bit like your point about St. Joseph dying (which is attested by the Church Fathers, as well); absent any other information to the contrary, we can assume (no pun intended) that St. Joseph died a natural death. (St. Joseph is actually venerated in the Church as the "Patron of a Happy Death", since he presumably died in the arms of Blessed Mary and the Lord Jesus--how better aa way to die?)

Besides, it is a detour to the message of the Gospel. The gospels are about Christ and how Christ came to save us. That should be the focus.

I'd gently disagree with the idea that it's a detour. The very last words of Blessed Mary in the Gospels are "Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you!" She still says that... and all faithful, well-ionformed Catholics are aware of that. No true devotion to the Blessed Virgin will in any way detract from pursuing Jesus, Our Lord and God.

If more people are focused on praying to Mary, worshipping Mary, etc, the less attention is paid to Jesus. And that is the goal of Satan.

No sane person worships Mary (in the modern sense of "adoration due to God alone"--there's an old English definition of "worship" which worked... since it originally meant "worth-ship", or "condition of being worthy", just as "sportsmanship" is the condition of being "sportsmanlike")... and the Catholic Church condemns any such "worship" (the specific term is "adoration", or "latria" in Latin) of anyone or anything other than God. (The Catechism is specific on that point... though many non-Catholics don't bother to confirm that.)

[paladinan]

Right. Well... given the choice between talking with those who actually discuss the issues, versus trying to talk to people who are content to dodge the issues while dropping slimy, inflammatory insinuations like that... I’ll take the former, thank you, and bid you a good day.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Re: your comment at #99: if you’ll be so kind as to answer my question first (or let redleghunter answer it), I’ll be happy to do my best to answer yours.

[metmom]
That's a bunch of nonsense. No Catholic ever ends up answering the question. They are just deflecting with that tactic, I'll answer yours if you answer mine first.

Let me get this straight: RnMomof7 posts a thread with assertions, I ask a question about it, she avoids the question and asks one of her own, and then... you criticize me for "dodging"?

"How dare you refuse to answer the question which someone used to avoid your previous question! Cheap evasion tactics! Typical Catholic!"

Really? Honestly? (And are you suggesting that RnMomof7 is Catholic, since she was "dodging" first? I'll let the two of you settle that one, amongst yourselves...)

If you want the courtesy of someone answering you, you ought to show them the same respect and answer theirs. Cause we all know, because we've all seen, that the initial question never gets answered.

(*headdesk*)

Irony, thy name is metmom.

[verga]

You will finds that dodging questions and bearing false witness against the Catholic Church is standard practice among the prots here. Confronted with the truth they will run the other way as fast was humanly possible.

The absolute worst are the ones that claim to have been Catholics previously

[paladinan]

[redleghunter]
Never called you Satan or Satan’s servant.

[Elsie]
Why not? It was good enough for the 'First Pope'!

(*sigh*) Y'know... I've seen this record played before. Start a conversation, Elsie jumps in, and then goes "postal" before too long.

Elsie... are you seriously encouraging another commenter to call me Satan and/or Satan's servant? (Remind him to thank you for voiding his effort to assert his innocence to the RM.) Would the RM approve of that sort of mud-slinging, do you think?

At any rate, I think I'll leave you and redleghunter to chat this up amonst yourselves, and I'll stick to those who're less prone to go ballistic. Get well soon.

[metmom]

I think you misunderstand how the Magisterium works, friend. The charism of infallibility protects the Church from teaching (as formal dogma, binding on all the faithful under pain of heresy/sin) anything that's FALSE--but it doesn't promise an instant encyclopedia of every last possible implication of every last verse.

INSTANT? For REAL?

It's not like the RCC has had almost 2,000 years to work on it.....

[paladinan]

Many of them are decent folks. Others... well... some at least give a good, convincing simulation of having gone off their meds, after a few posts... and they have a tendency to bring out the worst in others (especially others who dislike/hate/fear the Catholic Church).

Keep fighting the good fight!

[metmom]

Since 2 Timothy didn't say anything about unbelievers, I have to conclude that the bit about it being "adequate to being the unbveliever to Christ" is metmom's opinion, and not necessarily Divine revelation.

Paul wrote 2 Timothy TO a believer about and for BELIEVERS.

Besides, that's not the main issue. The main issue is the adequacy of Scripture.

[paladinan]

More later; must return to real life (and Eucharistic Adoration—I’ll pray for the intentions of all on the board, while I’m there!)...

[Elsie]

How old are you?..

1 Timothy 4:12 King James Version (KJV)

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

[Elsie]

Some/many have that right now..

Oh?

The Great White Throne thingy happened and I missed it?

[RnMomof7]

Do you see my point? I think you misunderstand how the Magisterium works, friend

No, I think You misunderstand ...Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals ...and yet they have never compiled an INFALLIBLE commentary of the scriptures...so every priest, every bible study, every theologian is just giving his own personal interpretation of the s Scriptures..

Rome is caught with her hand in the cookie jar.. with her priests giving their own personal interpretation of the scripture ... you know YOPIS

[metmom]

And yet, if these Scriptures required men 'to sort them out'; then after sorting such where did the Roman See gain its authority? If you cast the very 'compiling' of Scriptures in a shady man-made corner, then even the Scriptures Rome claims as its authority are in question.

Details, details....

RC's don't realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot with their line of questioning.

[metmom]

And yet, if these Scriptures required men 'to sort them out'; then after sorting such where did the Roman See gain its authority? If you cast the very 'compiling' of Scriptures in a shady man-made corner, then even the Scriptures Rome claims as its authority are in question.

There sure is an awfully strong concerted effort on the part of the RC's to call into question the integrity of Scripture.

[metmom]

Why was Kennedy granted one when there were children?

$$$$$$

[ravenwolf]

Paul tells us who *petra* is.
And it isn’t Peter.

It simply cannot get any plainer.
-————————————————————————————And Paul also calls Peter (Cephas)

Jesus called Peter (Cephas ) John 1:42.

It depends on what we want to believe, now do I want to believe Cephas as a stone or a rock?

Well if I believe Cephas is a rock it might make the Catholic smile.

If I believe Cephas is only a stone it may make the protestant smile.

I can`t stand smiling smug Christians, and you do notice I did say Christians whether Catholic or protestant, I have no doubt you could find a few in either sect.

Maybe it can not get any plainer to some one who knows it all but I do not know, it is not that plain at all.