[Tj3]

Please do explain in some detail. Its not logically evident.

JoeT

I notice that the Roman Catholics discussing this topic always want to get into great detail on this side of the issue, but appear to avoid dealing with the fact that the onus is on this to valid their additions to the canon.

[JoeT777]

I notice that the Roman Catholics discussing this topic always want to get into great detail on this side of the issue, but appear to avoid dealing with the fact that the onus is on this to valid their additions to the canon.

Great dodge! So you blame the Bible for not wanting to explain?

If I remember my history correctly it was Wyclif and the Lollards (circa 1380), Jan Hus (circa 1400) and Martin Luther (circa 1520) who came up with Sola Scriptura along with host of other errors. To my knowledge Wyclif and Hus never mention deleting books from the Cannon.

Even still I’m looking forward to seeing a logical explanation of Sola Scriptura; I’ve never seen one. It seems to me that since I’m not a proponent and don’t understand Sola Scriptura the burden to explain its scriptural validity is yours.

JoeT

[N0help4u]

If it is not explained in the Bible maybe it is because it is not Biblical
So why would the Bible explain something that didn't exist?
That would be like saying it is the Bibles fault that it doesn't explain Mormon's teaching on Jesus and Lucifer being brother angels.

[Tj3]

Great dodge! So you blame the Bible for not wanting to explain?

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based upon a claim that Sola Scriptura contradicted the Bible. The onus would be on those who support that claim to validate that claim. But it seems that those who support extraBiblical sources of doctrine do not wish to validate their beliefs.

[JoeT777]

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.

N0help4u:

I agree Holy Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God to reveal his Truth. So as to discern Scripture from other writings we look to the authority of the Catholic Church. Thus we find that Roman Catholic Church doctrines harmonize with apostolic teachings (tradition) as well as Holy Scriptures.

This is why, when speaking of doctrine, St. Augustine says, “But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes”. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY

If by asserting, “Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit Church doctrine” we are affirming the same concepts in different ways, then yes I agree. Just to be perfectly clear, your statement as written here, does not consider Sola Scriptura; which is a concept I do not hold.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was

While I disagree with your assertion here, being new to the forum, I'll start with the Catholic view.

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Consequently, this makes Apostolic tradition usually in the form of papal and councils decrees to be the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith. Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture. Most Protestants form distinct groups of likeminded sole arbitrators of the rule of faith, i.e. Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, etc. Since each individual has the same rights to authenticate what the Scriptures represent then there can be as many different rules of faith as there are Protestant denominations; for that matter hypothetically we could end up with as many denominations as there are Protestants. Only one can represent an absolute truth; which is infallibly right and which isn't?

We see that Protestantism isn't 'one' faith and can never be 'one' given that each is the arbitrator of his own faith. So when we come to (John 17:11): as you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.”

I've indicated the Catholic position; so how is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?

JoeT

[De Maria]

No, that is not it at all, but the OP was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based upon a claim that Sola Scriptura contradicted the Bible. The onus would be on those who support that claim to validate that claim. But it seems that those who support extraBiblical sources of doctrine do not wish to validate their beliefs.

You've a short memory TJ. I've demonstrated over and over that Sola Scriptura not only contradicts the Bible but it also contradicts itself.

Lets go over it again. We'll use your definition of Sola Scriptura.

See Scripture alone? Thread, page 20, message #194 wherein you defined Sola Scriptura as:

the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:

Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.

This is confirmed elsewhere:
1 Corinthians 2 13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

So, the doctrine which they learned was spoken to them. Therefore ANOTHER standard for doctrine is oral teaching.

And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.

So, if the Bible did teach that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine, it would contradict Itself. But It doesn't teach that doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of men which contradicts Scripture.

And since Scripture nowhere says that scripture is the sole standard of doctrine, that means that the doctrine named Sola Scriptura, contradicts itself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

The Roman Catholic holds that both Scripture and tradition must be...

The OP once again was:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does sola scriptura contradict the Bible when it is meant to back up Church doctrine?
If it contradicts the Bible then it isn't making sense to me.

Church doctrine is suppose to be backed up by scripture not scripture made to fit church doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is not about your denomination's position.

On the other hand, we have a view (primarily Protestant) that canonical Scripture are the only infallible basis for the rule of faith.

Let's once again stick to scripture, not to your denomination, nor any other.

Each individual holding the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to interpret the Scripture

This is the same mis-representation that De Maria posted. How can anyone claim to be able to evaluate sola scriptura if you do not know what it is?

BTW, before you point fingers with an accusation such as this, does your denomination claim the right to interpret scripture?

[Tj3]

the belief that scripture is the sole standard for doctrine.

We're making progress!

Now lets hold that belief up to the Biblical standard:

Scripture says:
Hebrews 13 7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

Obviously, if you are supposed to follow the faith taught by your prelates, your leaders in the Church, then the oral teaching of the prelates is your standard.

Using a better translation it states:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

And the Bible also says:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So obviously, if we must go to the Church to settle doctrinal disputes, then the Church must also be a standard for doctrine.

This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:

Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV

It is important to understand what doctrine is.

[savedsinner7]

The Bible is the authoritative standard we are to live by.

Ecclesiastes 3:14
And I know that whatever God does is final. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God's purpose is that people should fear him.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.


God tells us by His Word and His Spirit what we need to live by.

Job 28:20
“From where then does wisdom come?And where is the place of understanding?

Psalm 119:104
Through Your precepts I get understanding;Therefore I hate every false way.

Psalm 119:130
The entrance of Your words gives light;It gives understanding to the simple.

Psalm 119:144
The righteousness of Your testimonies is everlasting;Give me understanding, and I shall live.

Psalm 119:169
[ ת TAU ] Let my cry come before You, O LORD;Give me understanding according to Your word.

Proverbs 2:6
For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;

Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens;

Proverbs 9:10
“ The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:28
Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God.

2 Chronicles 6:10
So the LORD has fulfilled His word which He spoke,

2 Chronicles 6:17
And now, O LORD God of Israel, let Your word come true,

2 Chronicles 11:2
But the word of the LORD came

Ezra 9:4
Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”

[De Maria]

We're making progress!

I didn't endorse your interpretation. I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.

Using a better translation it states:

Heb 13:7-8
7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
NKJV

It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.

It may be yours, but not mine. Note that the men of Berea did not consider the oral preaching of Paul to be their standard, but rather Paul's words were tested by going to scripture - and Paul commended them.

Acts 17:10-12
10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.

Therefore the teaching of the Catholic Church is depicted here. The Teaching Church, aka, the Magisterium teaches the traditions by word and epistle.

This says nothing of the sort. This refers to judging actions, and has nothing to do with establishing doctrine. Read the passage just before to see the context:

Matt 18:15-16
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
NKJV

It is important to understand what doctrine is.

But it has everything to do with obeying and interpreting doctrine.

Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching. And the Church teaches the word of God. This brother has sinned by offending the word of God.

Hamartanō
1) to be without a share in

2) to miss the mark

3) to err, be mistaken

4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

5) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Otherwise the Church would not be brought into the fray:

Luke 12 13 And one of the multitude said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 But he said to him: Man, who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[JoeT777]

does your [Church] claim the right to interpret scripture?

Matthew 16:19, Mat18:18, John 21:15-19

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Mark 7:13

[Tj3]

I didn't endorse your interpretation.

I did not say that you did - but it is the first time that you actually acknowledged the correct definition.

I have simply proved again that it is not to be found in Scripture.

Perhaps in your own mind, you have, but not in reality.

It says the same thing. The Scripture is telling you to follow the standard of Church teaching.

No it does not - how you managed to get that interpretation out of that verse is beyond me. You comment emphasizes the danger of private interpretation.

That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. Obviously, Paul and Silas represent the Teaching Church. The Magisterium. They are not here saying, look it up in Scripture alone. They have taught the Bereans the traditions by word which they look for in Scripture.

Wow - can you build a story where it doesn't exist.

Doctrine is Teaching. In respect of the Church, it is Church teaching.

Doctrine is one thing which can be taught, yes, but to say that by teaching something orally it becomes the standard of doctrine is not true at all. Indeed rarely if ever true. You have made a stretch of logic not supported either by the facts at hand or by the rules of logic.

[Tj3]

Matthew 16:19, Mat18:18, John 21:15-19

JoeT

First of all you did not answer the question (yes or no would do fine), and second, just posting verses does not explain anything - you need to tell us your intent.

[JoeT777]

The OP once again was:

Savedsinner7, Tj3, et al

Savedsinner7 lists a series of verses claiming they are biblical proof of authoritative standard to live by. I would agree that they are standards benefitting our holiness. On the other hand, none are authoritative verification of the Sola Scriptura theory.

Tj3 said that it was so clear and logical that it was “unnecessary to go into it in detail.” However, I find it unclear and illogical that a book can authenticate itself. The Apostle Thomas had a doubting nature; Christ never reproached him for his nature. When asked a question by a doubting Thomas, I don’t recall Christ saying “it’s unnecessary to go into it in detail.”

How am I to understand that each time I ask this question it’s dodged or ignored? Is it that the authority for the idea of Sola Scriptura can’t be shown to be scriptural? Please do explain how you find Sola Scriptura to be scripturally based in some detail. It’s not logically evident.

How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

First of all you did not answer the question (yes or no would do fine), and second, just posting verses does not explain anything - you need to tell us your intent.

Tj3 Good, good, I didn't know we were playing dodge ball.

Let's once again stick to scripture,

Your words not mine. Do you mean that the verses need to be explained? Should we get an "authority" in to explain it to you? Maybe the Pope?

Your it!

JoeT

[De Maria]

Doctrine is one thing which can be taught, yes, but to say that by teaching something orally it becomes the standard of doctrine is not true at all. Indeed rarely if ever true. You have made a stretch of logic not supported either by the facts at hand or by the rules of logic.

You see, here's the point you keep missing. The New Testament was first SPOKEN. First by Jesus Christ. Then by the Apostles.

If the spoken word being taught was not the standard of doctrine then, what was?

Of course, the spoken word was then written in the New Testament. Did the Church stop teaching after the doctrines it was teaching were written down?

NO! That never happens. Even today, math is still taught. Yet how many books have written down the knowledge that 1+1=2?

And to whom do we run to learn math? To a book, or to a teacher?

A very simple example is the assemby instruction that comes with a new toy which you must assemble for your child. How often do those instructions wind up in the trash because they are difficult to follow?

Isn't it ALWAYS better to have someone teach you who knows rather than to try to figger it out from "instructions"?

Read the Scripture:

2 Peter 3 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.


Acts Of Apostles 8 27 And rising up, he went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in this chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth. 33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth? 34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

And that is why the Sciptures always depict the Apostles teaching:
Romans 10 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?

1 Timothy 2 7 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle, (I say the truth, I lie not,) a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

2 Timothy 1 11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles.

That is why one can't divorce Tradition and Scipture. The Mass is a perfect example:

Acts Of Apostles 2 42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

From the time of the Apostles, we read the Scriptures and remember Our Lord's Sacrifice, partake of the Flesh and Blood of our Lord all in an atmosphere of prayer and worship.

This is why Scripture says of the Mass:
1 Corinthians 11 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[JoeT777]

Mark 7:13

The RCC isn’t creating tradition unto its own; it is fulfilling Christ’s commission. There is a marked difference.

JoeT

[N0help4u]

Jesus' commission was to win disciples