Sola Historia?

His by Grace ^ | 2/9/2015 | Timothy G. Enloe

[terycarl]

What with the way Catholicism has changed and morphed over the centuries, there is simply no credibility to the claim that Catholics make that the church is infallible. It simply cannot be trusted to be consistent.

Oh good grief, fallen away Catholics have ABSOLUTELY no concept of Catholicism which is probably why they are fallen away.....pathetic.

[Petrosius]

Dear, dear CynicalBear,

We all agree with the authority of scripture. What is in dispute is your claim of sola scriptura. All of your post point to the authority of scripture but not to the sola part of your claim. All your circumlocutions do is highlight that nowhere in scripture does it claim to be the sole authority. If there were a passage in scripture that unambiguously made such a claim you and others would be posting it in letters three miles high. You cannot do so because such a passage simply does not exist.

[Mark17]

Just because you don't obey the speed limit doesn't mean that it no longer exists...it does.

I know, but I hated going to mass. I was an alter boy, until they kicked me out because I did not feel like learning Latin. I thought I didn't want to say a bunch of meaningless words, in a language I did not understand. I would much rather have watched football, or go play hockey. I hated confessing my sins to some dude who was a sinner himself. Now, I also have a nice steak, or some good roast beef on Friday. Mmmm, good meat. Love it. I think I will do it again this Friday. 😄😇😃 It sure is fun, knowing I don't have to do these dead works anymore.

Maybe I will see you at the pearly gates.

[CynicalBear]

No, no, no, you can’t point to scripture alone for you authority for the Catholic Church. Saying it’s authoritative for one thing but not for another. And still you can’t show where what the apostles called “tradition” is exactly what is taught as “tradition” in the Catholic Church. It’s all double speak by Catholics.

[Salvation]

 

John, chapter 21

 

 

Conclusion. 24It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them,^* and we know that his testimony is true.ⁿ 25There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.^o

 

 

 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3 John, chapter 1

 

 

13I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink.^h 14Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. 15Peace be with you. The friends greet you; greet the friends^* there each by name.ⁱ

 

For Advent: Two Canons: Scripture & Tradition
Father John Behr on Tradition
Pope: The Unbreakable Unity between Scripture and Tradition
Does Jesus Condemn Tradition?
"Tradition" Is Not a Dirty Word
Essays for Lent: Tradition

Prayer and monasticism in Orthodox tradition (Prayer and silence)
The Tradition of Midnight Mass: History
The Tradition of Midnight Mass: History
Charles Borromeo and Catholic Tradition, re: Catholic Architecture [Catholic Caucus]
Revelation, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium
Tradition and Progress Not Opposed, Pope Tells Liturgy Conference
Rome's Station Churches Revive Ancient Tradition
Antioch Tradition Adorns the Church, Says Pope
CARA Reports on Religious Life Confirm Tradition [Catholic Caucus]
Apostolic Tradition [Church Fathers contra Sola Scriptura]
"Little Lost Lambeth," What Christian Tradition, Lambeth Conference & Aldous Huxley have in common

[daniel1212]

I’ve seen this same question from you answered at least twice before on other threads.

Where is Sola Scriptura in Scripture? Cite Chapter and verse. And where did Jesus tell anyone to write anything?

Your position is based upon fallacious premises, that only what Christ said in the gospels is what Christ taught, and SS requires explicit statements such as "Scripture alone is sufficient rule of faith in its formal and material aspects," which is no more tenable than requiring such for all doctrines.

Meanwhile RCs even argue Scripture teaches such a thing as praying to created beings in Heaven, without even one example of this common Cath. practice among the over 200 prayers the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture, and in instructions on who to pray to in Heaven, and on who has power and position to hear and respond to all the prayers from earth in Heaven.

As they imagine they can extrapolate that tradition of men, among many other things , out of Scripture, then their objection to Scripture being the sufficient rule of faith based upon it clearly being manifest as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, and which in principle provided for more being added, and for recognition of a canon, and formally and materially providing for what is necessary for salvation and growth (including the magisterial office, etc.), is hardly warranted.

Rather than going thru all this again, here is a recent response by God's grace to a typical polemic on this by Staples.

[terycarl]

You can’t use that. That’s Sola Scriptura unless you have some other authority.

No it's not, it is simply a (semi) quote from the Bible....like THIS IS MY BODY...which we also believe. That, however does in no way indicate that ONLY quotes from the Bible can be considered.

[terycarl]

History is written by those who eliminated their competition, sort of like the Cosa Nostra.

for 1,600 or so years, Catholicism had no competition....it was the revolutionaries that decided that they knew better than did the Catholics

[daniel1212]

Mary NEVER appears in Scripture after she is given to John.

Actually one last mention is made of her in Acts 1:14.

Why do you believe all the crazy stuff Rome has made up about her?

Because Scripture is not their master, though they are not bound by its censure not to think of mortals above what is written,. (1Co. 4:6), and thus it is impossible to praise her to excess, and go over the invisible line that separates the extreme adulation of the false Mary of Catholicism (versus the humble holy Mary of Scripture) as an almost almighty demigoddess and that of worship of God, though they can look and sound

the same.

As often said, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

[CynicalBear]

so you pick what you want and make up the rest like the Muslims and Mormons! That’s cool!!

[Petrosius]

Just because Catholics do not ascribe to sola scriptura does not mean that we cannot also appeal to scripture. We believe in scripture, just not the sola part. Nor was I pointing to scripture alone for the authority of the Church but rather pointing out that scripture alone does not support scripture alone. You are the one claiming sola scripture but you cannot point to scripture to support that claim.

[daniel1212]

That, however does in no way indicate that ONLY quotes from the Bible can be considered.

Which is simply not what SS holds, nor me. See here .

[CynicalBear]

>>We believe in scripture<<

Only when it suits you. Then you add stuff like the Muslims and the Mormons. The Catholic Church claims they teach the same "traditions" that the apostles taught but they can't prove it. So you're left with taking some guys word for it just like the Muslims and the Mormons.

>>Nor was I pointing to scripture alone for the authority of the Church<<

So where else to they get it from? Just because they said so?

>>You are the one claiming sola scripture but you cannot point to scripture to support that claim.<<

Catholics can't show any other source for what the apostles taught so that's all that's left. Catholics claim they taught other things but can't prove it.

[terycarl]

I know, but I hated going to mass. I was an alter boy,

I thought I didn't want to say a bunch of meaningless words, in a language I did not understand. Now, I also have a nice steak, or some good roast beef on Friday. Mmmm, good meat. Love it. I think I will do it again this Friday.

First, be VERY careful of calling yourself an "ALTER BOY"...that would call into question your gender identity...it is altar boy that I assume that you meant.You have the benefit of the doubt on that one :)

Meaningless words that you did not understand.....Hmmmmm, the original Bible was written in Greek or Hebrew, or Aramaic and later translated into Latin in the Vulgate....but oh well, just a lot of mumbo jumbo and you were VERY immature at the time...

Steak on Friday/// One of my favorites and the rule (just a rule) of abstinance was lifted many years ago. It was just to instill, in faithful Catholics, a slight sense of a penitential act to maybe help remove the overwhelming sin of pride that so many exhibit.....just saying.

[redleghunter]

But where did Christ tell anyone to write anything down?

Well I have to ask. Do you believe the Holy Spirit inspired the NT authors to write the gospels and epistles? And if you do believe such then do you see the purpose.

However I already pointed out the regard Jesus Christ had for the written Word. He used it to rebuke Satan. He used the written word to instruct the disciples on His righteousness. Jesus also said:

Matthew 24:35King James Version (KJV)

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

You know what, Jesus was right. His Words did not and shall not pass away. Why? The were written down.

Also, another poster already pointed out to you the Risen and Glorified Christ instructed John to write down the letters to the 7 churches.

Revelation 1:

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

So there's that. First rule of holes…stop digging. Next you will be saying Jesus could not read. Hope you don't go there.

[ealgeone]

John 20:31 (NASB)
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

[xone]

LOL, Nice.

[boatbums]

Even without accepting them as divinely inspired and thus infallible we can see a church established by Jesus with an authority given to the Apostles who latter associated other men in its leadership. We can also see that they preached that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead which they claimed to have witnessed. We also know that they gave their lives for their preaching. We can also compare what they proclaimed with what was written in the Old Testament. All this can be established before declaring that their writings are divinely inspired and thus infallible. It is from this that we can accept the truthfulness of their testimony. Their testimony being truthful then they did indeed witness Jesus rising from the dead. From this we can have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. If he is the Son of God then the church has the divine authority that he gave to it. And then it is by this divine authority that we can accept what the church proclaims to be Sacred Scripture. Nothing in this is begging the question as the author claims.

Sure it is begging the question! The Apostles were given authority in word and in power by Jesus Christ. Paul declared to the Thessalonians:

For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (I Thess. 1:4,5)

And to the Corinthians, he said:

We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything. (2 Cor. 6:3-10)

The writings handed down to the churches BY the Apostles were authoritative because they were from GOD. The believers were remanded to OBEY the instructions given to them in writing (see 2 Thess. 3:14; Romans 16:17; Colossians 4:16; 2 Thess. 3:6; Titus 2:8; 2 John 1:10). They did not, however, have to first wait around for their church "leaders" to decide whether or not to accept the Apostolic writings as from God before they obeyed. This is why it is error to presume the church, Catholic or otherwise, had God-given authority to define Divinely-inspired writings. They received them and obeyed because they knew from whom they received them. Just as the Jewish people were held to obey all that the Lord gave to them through Moses and the prophets or suffer His judgment.

This is why we know that Holy Scripture IS the objective authority for our faith - NOT the "church". The church - as the body of Christ - is to be in submission to God's sacred word. The way we can distinguish a genuine church from one that is not is from Scripture. Scripture tells us what a true church of Christ teaches, how it behaves, what it is commissioned to do, what results are expected as well as what Gospel it preaches. Scripture is the standard by which truth claims are measured - and that was how the early church leaders saw it. Some went so far as to say their words should be disregarded if what they taught could not be shown from Holy Scripture. That is a far cry from what the Roman Catholic church teaches today. According to Rome, the fact that they SAY something is true, is all the authority anyone needs. Truth becomes whatever they say it is rather than what God has said (see Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition (Viva Voce - Whatever We Say)). This was NOT how the early church behaved.

[redleghunter]

Really? What did He write down?

I am sure you are a Trinitarian. I am too. So is the Son of God Who is the Alpha and Omega, YHWH? If you come to that conclusion and confirm the Deity of Jesus Christ, then you know He did a lot of commanding to write things down well before His incarnation.

On the book of Wisdom? When was it "penned?"

From the USCCB:

The Book of Wisdom was written about fifty years before the coming of Christ. Its author, whose name is not known to us, was probably a member of the Jewish community at Alexandria, in Egypt. He wrote in Greek, in a style patterned on that of Hebrew verse. At times he speaks in the person of Solomon, placing his teachings on the lips of the wise king of Hebrew tradition in order to emphasize their value. His profound knowledge of the earlier Old Testament writings is reflected in almost every line of the book, and marks him, like Ben Sira, as an outstanding representative of religious devotion and learning among the sages of postexilic Judaism.

The primary purpose of the author was the edification of his co-religionists in a time when they had experienced suffering and oppression, in part at least at the hands of apostate fellow Jews. To convey his message he made use of the most popular religious themes of his time, namely the splendor and worth of divine wisdom (6:22–11:1), the glorious events of the exodus (11:2–16; 12:23–27; 15:18–19:22), God’s mercy (11:17–12:22), the folly of idolatry (13:1–15:17), and the manner in which God’s justice operates in rewarding or punishing the individual (1:1–6:21). The first ten chapters in particular provide background for the teaching of Jesus and for some New Testament theology about Jesus. Many passages from this section of the book, notably 3:1–8, are used by the church in the liturgy.

The USCCB admits Solomon was not the author. Dated 50 years before the First Advent of Christ.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Wisdom&ch=

Wisdom 2:

[b]Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us; he opposes our actions, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law[c] and charges us with violations of our training.(G) 13 He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord.(H) 14 To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,(I) 15 Because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways. 16 He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.(J) 17 Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end.(K) 18 For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.(L) 19 With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”(M)

I left the footnote references in. By the admission of the USCCB own introduction, Wisdom is a running summary of scripture already in existence at the time. Here are some footnotes from the NABRE study Bible:

From 2:12 to 5:23 the author draws heavily on Is 52–62, setting forth his teaching in a series of characters or types taken from Isaiah and embellished with additional details from other texts. The description of the “righteous one” in 2:12–20 seems to undergird the New Testament passion narrative.

Studied Wisdom in Catholic HS and at a Jesuit university. The book is excellent commentary on scriptures.

[Mark17]

First, be VERY careful of calling yourself an "ALTER BOY"...that would call into question your gender identity...it is altar boy that I assume that you meant.You have the benefit of the doubt on that one :)

LOL. You got me on that one. A spelling error, but it doesn't "alter" the truth. I did not like speaking Latin, and I hated Latin in High School too. Those nuns that taught Latin, couldn't speak it either. I just wanted to play hockey, because I enjoyed smashing into people. Made me feel good. After I left the Catholic Church, I lost that aggressiveness and took up snow skiing. I gave up the dead works. You can do dead works if you want, I choose not to. 😄😇😃😀😊