Sola Scriptura 2

[marks]

Most of the time I believe this is the best 'mixed multitude' forum around.

I think so too.

This at least allows people a place to discuss even radical differences. The problem most often is that charity is missing and personal abuse is very obviously present.

Not all have the same faith.

But I've found that when we can have good discussions, I've really appreciated being able to hash over things with people who resoundingly disagree with me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

You are evading the point. They were not in scripture when Paul quoted them. It is proof that the apostles were not Sola Scriptura.

Paul writing them makes them Scripture. It's not that Paul authenticated a non-Scriptural writing, or an oral tradition, by including it in the Bible.

In fact, nothing was in Scripture until Scripture was written. The fact that things which were written were also common knowledge at the time does not support adding to the canon. Nor does it support that there would be additional revelation. Whether there is or not isn't answered in this.

Jude's quote from Enoch, for instance, does not authenticate the so-called Book of Enoch, a known pseudepigrapha. Jude quotes Enoch, in a quote that also appears in a non-canonnical book.

God told Moses what to write about creation, but that doesn't mean creation was unknown until Moses wrote it. There may have been much oral tradition over the creation. And for all we know, and if it's like people today, some accurate and some not. What Moses wrote, being inspired by God, is accurate. Same with Jude, and the same with Paul. But that doesn't validate all oral tradition that is referenced in the Bible, or all extra-Biblical writings that may be referenced in the Bible.

Nor does it validate the authority of oral traditions, or extra-Biblical writings in general.

Much love!

 

[marks]

If traditions contradict Scripture then they are to be rejected. That is why I reject Sola Scriptura

We are to live by every Word of God.


How do you know which are the Words of God?

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

I think so too.



Not all have the same faith.

But I've found that when we can have good discussions, I've really appreciated being able to hash over things with people who resoundingly disagree with me.

Much love!

Amen!

 

[Mungo]

By your words I do not believe you don't care about Scripture, nor do you purposely believe that which plainly contradicts Scripture.

Untrue.

You don't care about Scripture, and you do believe things that contradict them?

Or you don't believe the Bible is all Scripture, and so contradicting the Bible is no problem?

Of course I care about Scripture and I believe the Bible is all scripture. Indeed it's so important I have a bigger Bible that you. I haven't chopped things out

Or there is no proven Scripture in the world, because there are no original manuscripts, and so you hear and believe what you agree with, whatever the source?

That's just a silly question.

Do you believe the writings of the prophets and apostles were Scripture? And if their original manuscripts were with us, you would believe them all to be Scripture?

I believe scripture is what the Catholic Church canonised at the Council of Rome in 382 and which was confirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

 

[Mungo]

Sola Scriptura is not only reading the Bible to one another.

Translation:
WOW! that a lot of proofs that Sola Scriptura is false.
I can't refute them so I will ignore them.

 

[Wrangler]

If by claiming "inerrancy - over God's Word" you mean that it contradicts God's word then the Catholic Church does not claim that.

Sadly, you are not judging the church by their fruit but by what they SAY they do. Of course, the RCC does not claim to contradict God's word; but they do contradict God's word.

Nor does the Catholic Church claim superiority to God written word, rather the opposite.
Yet this Magisterium [of the Catholic Church] is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant."
(Catechism of The Catholic Church, para 86)

Again, in practice, they do. It's not that they claim superiority to God written word; it's that their doctrine of equality with the Lord is a usurpation, e.g., claiming to be the "one, true" church.

 

[Wrangler]

I believe scripture is what the Catholic Church canonised at the Council of Rome in 382 and which was confirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

You do not seem to discern councils of men recognizing what is God-given from councils of men claiming the power to give what only God can give.

 

[Mungo]

Paul writing them makes them Scripture. It's not that Paul authenticated a non-Scriptural writing, or an oral tradition, by including it in the Bible.

In fact, nothing was in Scripture until Scripture was written. The fact that things which were written were also common knowledge at the time does not support adding to the canon. Nor does it support that there would be additional revelation. Whether there is or not isn't answered in this.

So a writing doesn't become scripture until it is authenticated. In that case nothing was scripture until it was authenticated by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome (and which confirmed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage).

Jude's quote from Enoch, for instance, does not authenticate the so-called Book of Enoch, a known pseudepigrapha. Jude quotes Enoch, in a quote that also appears in a non-canonnical book.

No it doesn't authenticate the Book of Enoch as scripture. It shows that the apostles were not Sola Scriptura.

God told Moses what to write about creation, but that doesn't mean creation was unknown until Moses wrote it. There may have been much oral tradition over the creation. And for all we know, and if it's like people today, some accurate and some not. What Moses wrote, being inspired by God, is accurate. Same with Jude, and the same with Paul. But that doesn't validate all oral tradition that is referenced in the Bible, or all extra-Biblical writings that may be referenced in the Bible.

Nor does it validate the authority of oral traditions, or extra-Biblical writings in general.

Much love!

As above

 

[Mungo]

You do not seem to discern councils of men recognizing what is God-given from councils of men claiming the power to give what only God can give.

The apostles and those who wrote scripture were only men.
But men wrote a lot and someone has to authenticate which of those writings are scripture and what are not.

 

[Mungo]

Sadly, you are not judging the church by their fruit but by what they SAY they do. Of course, the RCC does not claim to contradict God's word; but they do contradict God's word.

What's this RCC? I am talking about the Catholic Church.

Again, in practice, they do. It's not that they claim superiority to God written word; it's that their doctrine of equality with the Lord is a usurpation, e.g., claiming to be the "one, true" church.

The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. It is the Church from which all the myriads of Protestant denominations and sects broke off.

 

[Wrangler]

The apostles and those who wrote scripture were only men.
But men wrote a lot and someone has to authenticate which of those writings are scripture and what are not.

While true, what is your point?

 

[Mungo]

We are to live by every Word of God.

Yes by EVERY word of God not just the written word.

How do you know which are the Words of God?

Much love!

By the authentication of the Church that Jesus founded and which he promised would be led into all truth (John 16:13)
I believe Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

What's this RCC?

I think you know. RCC is an abbreviation for the Catholics church. This was discussed in another thread.

I am talking about the Catholic Church.

Yup, which the RCC is a part.

The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. It is the Church from which all the myriads of Protestant denominations and sects broke off.

Says you. The Orthodox Church says it is the Church that Jesus founded. It is the Church from which all the myriads of Protestant denominations and sects broke off, starting with your beloved Catholic Church.

Even still, you are both full of crap because the Catholic church, as it is currently constituted was not formed until the 4th century. It is beautiful how they pretend to go back to Peter AND assert authority given to him is successive. IF that were true, popes would be able to perform miracles of healing, tongues, resurrecting people, etc. Your claims of supremacy go against basic Bible teaching that humility comes before honor.

 

[Mungo]

While true, what is your point?

You seemed to be complaining that Church councils had no power to define what was scripture.

 

[Mungo]

I think you know. RCC is an abbreviation for the Catholics church. This was discussed in another thread.

No it isn't

Yup, which the RCC is a part.

I'm talking about the whole Catholic Church not a part of it.

Says you. The Orthodox Church says it is the Church that Jesus founded. It is the Church from which all the myriads of Protestant denominations and sects broke off, starting with your beloved Catholic Church.

They do say that but they are wrong. Evidence of that is the way they have split into factions, some parts of which do not accept the baptism of other parts.

Even still, you are both full of crap because the Catholic church, as it is currently constituted was not formed until the 4th century. It is beautiful how they pretend to go back to Peter AND assert authority given to him is successive. IF that were true, popes would be able to perform miracles of healing, tongues, resurrecting people, etc. Your claims of supremacy go against basic Bible teaching that humility comes before honor.

Wrong again. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ.[/QUOTE]

 

[marks]

So a writing doesn't become scripture until it is authenticated.

Not authenticated . . . actually written into Scripture.

The "Book of Enoch" is not, and was not Scripture, not before, not after Jude wrote his letter. The quote from Enoch is Scripture because Jude wrote it in his letter, not because it appears in the "Book of Enoch".

Paul wrote Scripture. But the Cretan poets were not Scripture. Paul quoted one, writing it into the Bible. But this says nothing whatsoever about the source material in any other respects. In that case, he's just saying, your own people know this about themselves.

Jude, quoting Enoch, isn't even neccesarily quoting from the "Book of Enoch". My thinking is that this quote from Enoch was known long before the pseudepigraphical "Book of Enoch" was written, what, a few centuries before Christ? Jude was quoting Enoch himself, not a false book that happens to contain the same quote. That's my thinking.

But no, it's not that a quote is authenticated, and that demonstrating a non-Bible only stance, rather, it's that a Bible writer writes it. God inspired them what to write, and those Words are from God, and even if the same words appear somewhere else, that does not mean that other words in that other thing are likewise words from God.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

You seemed to be complaining that Church councils had no power to define what was scripture.

Exactly correct - except not a complaint just an observation that claiming something is inspired by God - that others accept (such as Scripture) - is not the same thing as the RCC making unilateral proclamations of its own power - that others reject.

See the difference?

 

[Mungo]

The proof that all Scripture God ever had written are still on the earth:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

That does not refer to "all Scripture God ever had written".
It refers to the Mosaic Law.

I'm still waiting for the scriptural proofs of Sola Scriptura that you promised.

 

[marks]

The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. It is the Church from which all the myriads of Protestant denominations and sects broke off.

The true Catholic Church includes all who are born again from God, not only a certain sect.

Much love!