Where does the Bible say that it is the Sole Authority?

[biblecatholic]

The incorrect assertion that Roman dogma is biblical needs to be held up to the light of the scriptures. It is a complete allegorical interpretation.

Catholics interpret the Bible in a "literal" sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The "literal" meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The "literalist" interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: "that's what it says, that's what it means."

Also, the quote from Basil does not show catholic dogma to be true, it does the opposite. Basil appealed to the scriptures as the final answer. That is the same thing as protestants are saying about sola scriptura.

So do you believe what St Basil the Great held up to scriptures and saw as truth?

Actually protestants agree on the definition of "sola scriptura." It is not that we disagree about the defination of sola "scriptura" but some (so called) protestants reject the doctrine of sola scriptura. During the liberal/conservative controversy of the early 1900s, liberal denominations began to reject the authority of scriptures. They began using their own traditions to overthrow the doctrine. This does not mean we disagree on the definition.

If you believed in "sola scriptura" why don't you believe what Luther believed?

The problem with definition has more to do with Catholics who misrepresent the doctrine and the shoot down the false representation of the doctrine. OF course it is much easier to shoot down a misrepresentation of the doctrine then to attack the true doctrine of sola scriptura.

false

Have you read the last part of this thread? 2 Tim 3:16-17 has the doctrine of sola scriptura when the verses assert that the scriptures are "theopneustos" and sufficient for the man of God. Of course the words sola are not in the bible, but that fact is meaningless. The words trinity are not in the bible. The doctrine of Sola scriptura is in the bible.

Are you saying that you proved it? ...... It is not in the bible, it is in your tradition. There is more biblical evidence for the Assumption(rapture) of the Blessed Mother than your doctrine of "sola scriptura"

Wow, I have seen the 33k statement before, but now it is 55k! Just think about it a little bit. If you take the entire world population of 6 billion people, divide it by the 55k figure and you have a mere 100k people in each denomination. Now lets just assume that not every person on the planet is in a protestant denomination. Lets say that there are only 1 billion people in protestant denominations. That reduces the figure to below 20k per denomination. Such a claim that there are 55k protestant denominations is obviously absurd, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It is difficult not to laugh, but where in the world did you get such statistics?

This is a fact. I'll get you the stats and info. There are many denominations that have 100 people in them, some a 1000, some 10000. this shouldn't make us laugh it should make us cry for what we have done to the body of Christ

Here you confuse the interpretation of scriptures and miss the point of the authority of scriptures. This is the same thing as what I observed in the popes last statement on the religious organizations "of the 16th century." Catholics often completely reinterpreted that statement they way they wanted to. Why the confusion among Catholics on what the pope said? Why there must be 55,000 different interpretations of what the pope said. Does the Catholic believe in sola ecclesia prevent differing interpretations of what the Church said? No, of course not.

Completely reinterpreted? that is a false statement........ sure there are people who see what they want to in anything written, but remember were not "sola scriptura". I don't know about the "church also" statement, I'll have to look into it.

about the christian communities. What the Pope said was true. You shouldn't have a problem if you actually read it. It claims that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established. In catholicism we do not consider us to have a church in a particular area until there is a Bishop over that area...... We know the means of salvation can be obtained through the your churches(communities).

I find people to be amazingly lazy. It is hard work to understand the context of a verse, and few are willing to go to the work of studying the grammar, syntax, context, and literary features of a passage. It is much easier to take some tradition and force it upon a passage of scripture. The problems are not with the bible, it is sufficient for every good work. The problems are with man. Men want to take the easy road and bring their traditions and force them into the word of God. They dont check the grammar, syntax, context, and literary features of a text. We should check tradition with the supreme authority, the word of God. Unfortunately that rarely happens, and that is why we have so many interpretations.

All christians follow tradition, now many are afraid to admit it....... What it looks like you are saying in this paragraph is that you have a "secret knowledge"of the scriptures that others don't. What about the others that make the exact claim as you, but believe the scriptures show something different, who's right?

The problem, is that people do not practice sola scriptura. Many confess sola scriptura, and then practice their traditions, and that is why the confusion.

sola scriptura is a tradition that could be some of the confusion too

 

[mondar]

The incorrect assertion that Roman dogma is biblical needs to be held up to the light of the scriptures. It is a complete allegorical interpretation.

Catholics interpret the Bible in a "literal" sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.

The "literal" meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The "literalist" interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: "that's what it says, that's what it means."

The first thing I need to ask is where did I say the words above? I need to look at the context of my own quote. I am aware that Roman dogma is based upon allegorical interpretation and do not understand why I would have said that. Help me out and show me the context of your quote of my words. If I somehow suggested that all Catholics use an allegorical method of interpretation, I would like the opportunity to withdraw that comment. But first, I would like to see where I made the comment.

The second thing is that you are quite mistaken that Evangelical hermeneutics is based upon "thats what it says, thats what it means" hermeneutics. In the scholarly works of evangelicals (such as Bruce Metzgar's work) no one ever makes such a statement. I think I should take your statement pretty lightly and not very serious. Are you just having a little temper tantrum?

Maybe you have been offended by someone with that attitude? Let it go. Plenty of people in every faith have offensive attitudes.

Although maybe it is not a temper tantrum, possibly you dont like to admit that the hermeneutics of evangelicals is actually correct. That would be an awful bitter pill to swallow for an ardent servant of Rome to have to actually be in agreement with protestants heretics on hermeneutics.... :

Can we just both agree that the bible is to be interpreted literally? Is that so difficult? Or do you really feel the need to create a straw man and say that evangelicals do not believe in literal hermeneutics?

Also, the quote from Basil does not show catholic dogma to be true, it does the opposite. Basil appealed to the scriptures as the final answer. That is the same thing as protestants are saying about sola scriptura.

So do you believe what St Basil the Great held up to scriptures and saw as truth?

Yes, I have the exact attitude toward scripture that Basil had in the quote mentioned.

Of course I am not saying that Basil was correct in everything. Would you say any individual Church Father was infallible in all he said and did?

Actually protestants agree on the definition of "sola scriptura." It is not that we disagree about the definition of sola "scriptura" but some (so called) protestants reject the doctrine of sola scriptura. During the liberal/conservative controversy of the early 1900s, liberal denominations began to reject the authority of scriptures. They began using their own traditions to overthrow the doctrine. This does not mean we disagree on the definition.

If you believed in "sola scriptura" why don't you believe what Luther believed?

What, now I must believe in "sola Luther" to agree with sola scriptura? Again, your question shows you do not yet understand the doctrine of "sola scriptura." You seem to believe that the doctrine of sola scriptura = sola Luther. I should not be surprised at this, you are Catholic, and that is Catholic thinking.

Protestants do not believe Luther, or any other person is infallible, the issue is not that Luther is fallible or infallible, but that the scriptures alone are an infallible and sufficient source of faith and practice in our days.

Of course if you point out that Christ was infallible, of course I would agree. But again, that would be a dog trail, it is not the point. The point is that the scriptures alone are sufficient for faith and practice. The point is the definition of sola scriptura. The doctrine of sola scriptura just simply does not include an infallible Luther, or infallible pope.

The problem with definition has more to do with Catholics who misrepresent the doctrine and the shoot down the false representation of the doctrine. OF course it is much easier to shoot down a misrepresentation of the doctrine then to attack the true doctrine of sola scriptura.

false

Amazing, I never saw anyone say "false" so deeply and so profoundly as you did. My my, was that not instructive.

Do you know what is truely amazing? You just got done misunderstanding the doctrine of sola scriptura yourself and asking the question about Luther like it applies somehow. I just had to spend time correcting your idea that Luther was the infallible authority. Luther and many scholars are authorities on exegesis, but they are not infallible authorities.

Sooooo, while you pronounce my statement above to be false, you have personally demonstrated the truth of the statement.

Have you read the last part of this thread? 2 Tim 3:16-17 has the doctrine of sola scriptura when the verses assert that the scriptures are "theopneustos" and sufficient for the man of God. Of course the words sola are not in the bible, but that fact is meaningless. The words trinity are not in the bible. The doctrine of Sola scriptura is in the bible.

Are you saying that you proved it? ...... It is not in the bible, it is in your tradition. There is more biblical evidence for the Assumption(rapture) of the Blessed Mother than your doctrine of "sola scriptura"

Well, I dont know that I want it to be so personal that "mondar proved sola scriptura." But the answer is yes, I believe that 2 Tim 3:16-17 demonstrates the truth of sola scriptura by itself. Not that other passages do not also contain the teaching implicitly, but that sola scriptura is most clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Concerning my tradition, of course it is in my tradition. I am guessing you felt the need to say that to accuse me of having a tradition in the same way you have a tradition. We obviously both have traditions but we each look at our traditions in different ways. You believe your tradition is infallible and therefore it is not as important for you to know the word of God. For me it is imperative that I check my traditions against the word of God at all times. I do not consider my tradition infallible as you do. Nevertheless, the word tradition itself is not some ugly evil word. It is used in the scriptures in both evil ways (IE the traditions of men --colossians 2:8) and positive ways (IE traditions that Paul taught orally before he wrote them down --2 Thes 2:15).

Concerning the biblical evidence (I dont mean to sound like Paul in 1 Cor... "now concerning") for the bodily assumption of Mary, Roman Catholics have claimed to see Mary assumed bodily into heaven from Revelation 12. Such a reading of Rev 12 is extremely fanciful. Even if Mary is the woman clothed in 12 stars, who had the baby, no where does the text say that this woman is bodily assumed into heaven. Nevertheless the woman is not mary, it is Israel. That is why the symbolism of the 12 stars. Of course the sun and moon is imagery from Genesis and Joseph's dream relating to the 12 tribes. Nevertheless, to read the bodily assumption of Mary into Rev 12 is fanciful. There is no biblical evidence.

Wow, I have seen the 33k statement before, but now it is 55k! Just think about it a little bit. If you take the entire world population of 6 billion people, divide it by the 55k figure and you have a mere 100k people in each denomination. Now lets just assume that not every person on the planet is in a protestant denomination. Lets say that there are only 1 billion people in protestant denominations. That reduces the figure to below 20k per denomination. Such a claim that there are 55k protestant denominations is obviously absurd, and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It is difficult not to laugh, but where in the world did you get such statistics?

This is a fact. I'll get you the stats and info. There are many denominations that have 100 people in them, some a 1000, some 10000. this shouldn't make us laugh it should make us cry for what we have done to the body of Christ

Please get me the stats and info. If the author of the stats has any actual stats, then he must be counting individual bible churches as each being one denomination or something like that. I suspect your stats blur distinctions between churches and denominations. Some churches never joined a denomination, and they are counted as their own denomination? In that case, why not count each individual SS class as a division? I bet you could clear 100k with that method!

Here you confuse the interpretation of scriptures and miss the point of the authority of scriptures. This is the same thing as what I observed in the popes last statement on the religious organizations "of the 16th century." Catholics often completely reinterpreted that statement they way they wanted to. Why the confusion among Catholics on what the pope said? Why there must be 55,000 different interpretations of what the pope said. Does the Catholic believe in sola ecclesia prevent differing interpretations of what the Church said? No, of course not.

Completely reinterpreted? that is a false statement........ sure there are people who see what they want to in anything written, but remember were not "sola scriptura". I don't know about the "church also" statement, I'll have to look into it.

about the christian communities. What the Pope said was true. You shouldn't have a problem if you actually read it. It claims that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established. In catholicism we do not consider us to have a church in a particular area until there is a Bishop over that area...... We know the means of salvation can be obtained through the your churches(communities).

Concerning my use of the term "completely reinterpret"... I guess you could like at my words and say that I am suggesting that their interpretation of the popes words bears no similarity to what he meant. If you view them that way, yes, it would be an over statement. However, I did not mean the words "completely reinterpret" in that way. I was referring mainly to the statement of the curia at this web page... http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... es_en.html

The pope and curia are saying that all protestants are going to hell. That is probably much more offensive to you then it is to me. The statement is little more then a curiosity to me. I have notice how many eccumentical American Catholics are either deeply offended by the statement, or they wish to reinterpret it to say that the pope was not talking about salvation but just the definition of a Church. Now Come on! I know that in the Roman Catholic defination of salvation, that salvation is of the Church. When protestants are defined as not having sacraments, apostolic priesthood, and not a Church, we are then obviously outside the so called saving sacramental system of the Roman Church.

I do not blame the ecumenical American Roman Catholics for redefining the popes statement. They dont want that nice little guy in the Vatican spitting hellfire! Heh, but thats exactly what the dude was doing.

Do you think I misrepresented Ecumenical American Catholics as "completely misrepresenting" the pope? If you do, oh well, then take out the word "completely" and make it "partially."

I find people to be amazingly lazy. It is hard work to understand the context of a verse, and few are willing to go to the work of studying the grammar, syntax, context, and literary features of a passage. It is much easier to take some tradition and force it upon a passage of scripture. The problems are not with the bible, it is sufficient for every good work. The problems are with man. Men want to take the easy road and bring their traditions and force them into the word of God. They dont check the grammar, syntax, context, and literary features of a text. We should check tradition with the supreme authority, the word of God. Unfortunately that rarely happens, and that is why we have so many interpretations.

All christians follow tradition, now many are afraid to admit it....... What it looks like you are saying in this paragraph is that you have a "secret knowledge"of the scriptures that others don't. What about the others that make the exact claim as you, but believe the scriptures show something different, who's right?

Well, first lets back off the "secrete knowledge" stuff. No knowledge is secrete, but some people just simply dont have ability to understand certain things in the bible. Some people dont even want to try to understand things in the bible.

Some of the things in the bible I think are obvious enough for anyone who buys a bible and reads english to understand. Who cannot read John 1:1 and come up with the complete deity of Jesus Christ (unless your a J Witness and have the new world translation). On the other hand, few would be able to work with a subject like the "day of the Lord" (Yom YHVH) and it eschatological implications. People definitely come in a spread of abilities and interests.

The problem comes when people rely on their traditions and bring judge biblical interpretations based upon what their tradition says. Now you are correct in that everyone has traditions (including me). Yet we need to be constantly challenging our own traditions (not with other peoples traditions) but with the word of God.

This applies to both Catholics and protestants. It might be more painful for Catholics to judge their own tradition by scriptures, because their Church claims that its own tradition is infallible. Protestants can more easily challenge traditions because of sola scriptura. Of course some people will have less ability to check traditions against the word of God, but we should all do it to the best of our ability.

The problem, is that people do not practice sola scriptura. Many confess sola scriptura, and then practice their traditions, and that is why the confusion.

sola scriptura is a tradition that could be some of the confusion too

heh, with the term "theopneustos" (inspired-KJV God breathed-NIV) in 2 Tim 3:16, it is a tradition based upon good exegesis of the bible.

Did you ever wonder why the term theopneustos (inspired) was never used in a context with tradition in it? Paul could have said to Timothy that tradition would fully equipt the man of God and that sacred tradition is "theopneustos" (inspired). He did not do that. Why do you think he did not do that. This would have been the perfect context for it.

PS---This thread is getting too long. I understand if you do not want to reply to all of it. It as taken me nearly 2 hours to do this. Its getting too much. See you later.

 

[biblecatholic]

you are quite mistaken that Evangelical hermeneutics is based upon "thats what it says, thats what it means" hermeneutics. In the scholarly works of evangelicals (such as Bruce Metzgar's work) no one ever makes such a statement. I think I should take your statement pretty lightly and not very serious. Are you just having a little temper tantrum?

I wasn't meaning for the tone to sound impolite, if I was I apologize. I would say that the bible is to be interpreted literally- the author "intended meaning". ... so we agree there.

Maybe you have been offended by someone with that attitude? Let it go. Plenty of people in every faith have offensive attitudes.

maybe in correcting someone's tone you should not do what you are complaining about.

Although maybe it is not a temper tantrum, possibly you dont like to admit that the hermeneutics of evangelicals is actually correct. That would be an awful bitter pill to swallow for an ardent servant of Rome to have to actually be in agreement with protestants heretics on hermeneutics.... :

which of the thousands of evangelical hermeneutics should I use, maybe your infallible one

Can we just both agree that the bible is to be interpreted literally? Is that so difficult? Or do you really feel the need to create a straw man and say that evangelicals do not believe in literal hermeneutics?

I actually like the tin-man better but the Lion is pretty cool too.
[/color]

Yes, I have the exact attitude toward scripture that Basil had in the quote mentioned.

I would have to say i don't agree with your interpretation of that quote if you knew what he stood for you would have a better idea of what is said

Church Father was infallible in all he said and did?

not even the pope is infallible in all he says or does
[

What, now I must believe in "sola Luther" to agree with sola scriptura? Again, your question shows you do not yet understand the doctrine of "sola scriptura." You seem to believe that the doctrine of sola scriptura = sola Luther. I should not be surprised at this, you are Catholic, and that is Catholic thinking.

you're not understanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" invented by Luther has followers who think he was way off in his "sola scripturaness"

Protestants do not believe Luther, or any other person is infallible, the issue is not that Luther is fallible or infallible, but that the scriptures alone are an infallible and sufficient source of faith and practice in our days.

but the bible does not claim this

Amazing, I never saw anyone say "false" so deeply and so profoundly as you did. My my, was that not instructive.

:D thank you

Do you know what is truely amazing? You just got done misunderstanding the doctrine of sola scriptura yourself and asking the question about Luther like it applies somehow. I just had to spend time correcting your idea that Luther was the infallible authority. Luther and many scholars are authorities on exegesis, but they are not infallible authorities.

would you be the neo of infallibly interpreting the scriptures?

Well, I dont know that I want it to be so personal that "mondar proved sola scriptura." But the answer is yes, I believe that 2 Tim 3:16-17 demonstrates the truth of sola scriptura by itself. Not that other passages do not also contain the teaching implicitly, but that sola scriptura is most clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

you're making the bible say what it doesn't say

You believe your tradition is infallible and therefore it is not as important for you to know the word of God. For me it is imperative that I check my traditions against the word of God at all times. I do not consider my tradition infallible as you do. .

thankfully you are the infallible interpreter

to be continued

 

[Guest]

Biblecatholic - what is your understanding of 2 Tim 3:16-17?

 

[unred typo]

mondar wrote:Well, I dont know that I want it to be so personal that "mondar proved sola scriptura." But the answer is yes, I believe that 2 Tim 3:16-17 demonstrates the truth of sola scriptura by itself. Not that other passages do not also contain the teaching implicitly, but that sola scriptura is most clear in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

biblecatholic wrote:
you're making the bible say what it doesn't say

Biblecatholic’s right. It says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.†It doesn’t say that the Bible is infallible. In fact some of the scriptures that were included in the “all†of that verse are not allowed in the Bible. In fact whenever I have tried to use those scriptures (Jasher) to prove a point in the Bible, I have all but been branded some kind of heretic. Regardless, the scriptures are profitable, not infallible.

mondar wrote:
You believe your tradition is infallible and therefore it is not as important for you to know the word of God. For me it is imperative that I check my traditions against the word of God at all times. I do not consider my tradition infallible as you do.

biblecatholic wrote:
thankfully you are the infallible interpreter

Mondar may not be infallible but he has a point here. You have taken the words spoken to Peter and applied it to others who it was not spoken to. Peter may have been given the keys to the kingdom but guess what? He’s dead. Now what?

Thankfully we have the infallible interpreter available whenever we are truly seeking the truth. If we can get our own interpretations and traditions out of the way, the very own Spirit of God will teach us. Knock, seek, ask and you will find it opened unto you, and answers will be given to you. When you put someone or something between you and God, you have created an idol of your own making and you are not worshipping the only true God. He hates that. Cut it out. You’re fighting like little children and you’re both wrong. What John wrote is profitable here:

1 John 2:26-28
“These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.â€Â

Does he say anything about Peter or tradition or the scriptures being infallible?

 

[Guest]

unred - what you are saying is that God is falliable.

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:35 am
unred - what you are saying is that God is falliable.

No, what I’m saying is what I said. God is infallible. The Bible is not God.

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:35 am
unred - what you are saying is that God is falliable.

No, what I’m saying is what I said. God is infallible. The Bible is not God.

But 2 Timothey 3:16-17 says that God WROTE the Bible. If God is infallible, then so it what God wrote.

 

[francisdesales]

heh, with the term "theopneustos" (inspired-KJV God breathed-NIV) in 2 Tim 3:16, it is a tradition based upon good exegesis of the bible.

Did you ever wonder why the term theopneustos (inspired) was never used in a context with tradition in it? Paul could have said to Timothy that tradition would fully equipt the man of God and that sacred tradition is "theopneustos" (inspired). He did not do that. Why do you think he did not do that. This would have been the perfect context for it.

I would like to disagree with your conclusion, as it does not take some things into account.

First of all, what DOES "God-breathed" mean? WHAT or better, WHO is God's breath???

It is the Holy Spirit, correct?

Now, does the Holy Spirit ONLY inspire men when they actually take quill to papyrus? Does God's breath ONLY come to those apostles who wrote the Scriptures? No.

Jesus Himself says that He will give God's Spirit to the Apostles so that they can accurately TEACH what He had taught them. Paul tells the Thessalonians to obey the TRADITIONS (teachings) passed down to them, BOTH orally and written. "Luke" wrote in Acts that the Spirit guided the Church when making a decision against the necessity of circumcision BEFORE the New Testament was EVER written! IF the Holy Spirit, God's breath, is leading the Church, then it goes without saying that BOTH oral and written teachings, traditions, of the Apostles are infallible.

Thus, God's breath not only was involved in the writing of Scriptures, but in the teaching of the faithful, to include oral teachings passed down. God's breath was active in the life of the Church, and Jesus has promised that it will REMAIN active.

If one can follow this idea, then one can see how "sola" scriptura fails, since it is no longer "sola". And this is my second point. NOWHERE does 2 Timothy 3 say that the Bible ALONE is the sole rule of our faith. While it does say that Scriptures are God-breathed, elsewhere, and often, the Bible ALSO says that the CHURCH IS GOD-BREATHED. Elsewhere, the Bible says that pastors and teachers of the faith PERFECT the Christian. Elsewhere, the Bible says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How could this be, IF the Church is not God-breathed?

This has been the teachings of the Church since the very beginning. We see it in the Scriptures, we see it in the first Church Fathers of the second century. We read the Bible under the guidance of God's Spirit, recognizing that the Tradition of the Church has ALWAYS been guided by God's Spirit. God's breath has always been guiding the Church, thus, it is a fallacy to ignore this living Tradition, a living faith that helps us TODAY.

Now, you mention St. Basil. He, like the other Church Fathers, understood the place of Scriptures within our faith. We draw our beliefs in God from Scriptures, but we do not do so OUTSIDE of the teachings of the Church, thus, Sola Scriptura was never taught by these Fathers. For example:

Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).

Or,

To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

His was not a new teaching:

Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

0r

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…†Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

Nor was this:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:6-9

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:1-2

"sola" Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, nor was it taught by the Church. It is an emasculation of the teachings given by Christ to the Apostles. It leaves us open to the whims of recent fads and does NOT help us in regards to new problems faced by our world. NOWHERE does the Bible speak about cloning. However, it is a moral issue that the Church must face. Without the Spirit-guided Tradition, how does the Church continue to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth?

Regards

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:07 am

But 2 Timothey 3:16-17 says that God WROTE the Bible. If God is infallible, then so it what God wrote.

No, sorry but that is not what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. This is what it says:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul wrote that and he wasn’t talking about the Bible on your desk. Even if you could stretch it to cover your KJV, it doesn’t say it is infallible. It says it is profitable. Look it up. It’s not the same word at all. Inspiration is not infallibility either. You may wish it was, but that won’t make it so.

 

[mondar]

francisdesales,
Your reading of 2 Tim 3:16 is just simply not based upon the text.

I would like to disagree with your conclusion, as it does not take some things into account.

First of all, what DOES "God-breathed" mean? WHAT or better, WHO is God's breath???

It is the Holy Spirit, correct?

Well, certainly the Holy Spirit is named as the source of men receiving special revelation in 2 Peter 1:21.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
In a way, 2 Tim 3:16 is very similar. 2Tim 3:16 again speaks of the origination of the scriptures. However, your questions show confusion concerning this teaching of 2 Tim 3:16. If you say "who is God breathed," and then answer that the HS is the person that is God breathed, that would be incorrect. The thing that is God breathed is the written word of God, the scriptures. In fact because of a predicate nominative construction, the words "scripture" and "God breathed" are inseparable.

If you say that the HS is the person being God breathed, what do you do with the first two words of 2 Tim 3:16.... "All scripture."

As I said, in greek the word scripture an the words God brathed cannot be separated. The words "scripture" and "God breathed" are both nominative (The subject of many greek sentances is in the nominative case). When two words are in the same nominative case, and there is no verb, this is called a predicate nominative construction in greek grammar. These two words then serve as the verb. To separate the concept of "God breathed" from "scripture" in any way would be to do great violence to the sentence. In fact such an interpretation destroys the sentance and makes it total nonsence. In other words, by separating those to concepts you no longer have a sentance.

If you dont understand all this grammatical mumbo jumbo, the bottom line is that it is impossible to read this text in any other way then saying that it is the scriptures that are God breathed.

Francisdesales,
What you are actually still doing, is changing the meaning of the grammar and vocabulary based upon your traditions. Even if you cannot follow the argument from the GNT, you can look at the passage in english. You can see how even in English you have the helping verb "is." All scripture "is" God breathed. So you really think that passage is not saying "all scripture is God breathed" but rather you think the passage is saying "the Holy Spirit is God breathed?"

To keep the posts from getting so long, I will address something else you said next.

 

[mondar]

Francisdesales, you also said,

Paul tells the Thessalonians to obey the TRADITIONS (teachings) passed down to them, BOTH orally and written.

Let me first help you with what the typical Catholic statement is. Most Catholics are referring to 2Thes 2:15.

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

Catholics typically point out that the word traditions occurs in the passage, and that the word traditions is defined as both oral and epistolary.

This again is the Catholic viewing scripture not in its context, but only through the lens of their own tradition. In the context, Paul says....
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now this is right in the same context, it is only 10 verses away. Here Paul is making a point that the things he is writing, he first presented orally in his teaching when he was in Thessalonia. His point is that there is no difference in content between is epistles and his former oral teaching. Pauls oral teaching was not something extra or different from his later epistles. It was not a tradition in the sense of some unwritten thing to be passed down orally from generation to generation. When Catholics approach the word tradition in this passage, the can only see the word tradition in light of their own dogma. Paul was simply saying that he gave the same identical revelation in verbal form when he was in Thessalonia that he is now writing down. By no means is this outside the doctrine of sola scriptura, but this is very different from the Catholic concept of tradition.

Sola scriptura allows for the apostles to teach orally before they write things down in gospels or epistles. There is nothing more then this in this verse.

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:07 am

But 2 Timothey 3:16-17 says that God WROTE the Bible. If God is infallible, then so it what God wrote.

No, sorry but that is not what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says. This is what it says:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Paul wrote that and he wasn’t talking about the Bible on your desk. Even if you could stretch it to cover your KJV, it doesn’t say it is infallible. It says it is profitable. Look it up. It’s not the same word at all. Inspiration is not infallibility either. You may wish it was, but that won’t make it so.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God...." Paul, under the guidance and INSPIRATION of God, wrote that verse.

I would hope that we can agree that anything God would INSPIRE would be infalliable.

 

[francisdesales]

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

Catholics typically point out that the word traditions occurs in the passage, and that the word traditions is defined as both oral and epistolary.

This again is the Catholic viewing scripture not in its context, but only through the lens of their own tradition. In the context, Paul says....
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Now this is right in the same context, it is only 10 verses away. Here Paul is making a point that the things he is writing, he first presented orally in his teaching when he was in Thessalonia. His point is that there is no difference in content between is epistles and his former oral teaching. Pauls oral teaching was not something extra or different from his later epistles. It was not a tradition in the sense of some unwritten thing to be passed down orally from generation to generation. When Catholics approach the word tradition in this passage, the can only see the word tradition in light of their own dogma. Paul was simply saying that he gave the same identical revelation in verbal form when he was in Thessalonia that he is now writing down. By no means is this outside the doctrine of sola scriptura, but this is very different from the Catholic concept of tradition.-

Thank you for your reply.

The point I am making in refering to 2 Thessalonians is that Paul says that BOTH oral and written teachings are to be followed. The word "AND" in that phrase is key. Paul doesn't say that oral teachings are abrogated now that Scripture has been written. Paul NEVER says that. IF what you are saying is true, Paul would have said ONLY written traditions were now effective. And why would he? He tells us that everything he taught is from God. It is purely presumption to believe that every word he said was put into print in a book that we call "bible". There is no evidence of that. All we have is that EVERYTHING Paul taught was to continue to be taught to the next generation of Christians. Even things not written down.

Naturally, one needs oral tradition to READ the Scriptures in the correct sense. THIS was what was passed down. The correct understanding of who Jesus was, who the Spirit is, how we view God, etc. Also, Baptism and the Eucharist are discussed prominently in the Scriptures. WHERE EXACTLY does Paul describe what is involved? What words are said? What are the rituals involved? It is PRESUMED that the followers of Christ would have SEEN these actions, and it was not necessary to relate them. Remember, Paul wrote letters to communities on subjects that needed tending to, where the community in question was having problems. Apparently, no one was fighting over the correct way to baptize, since Paul presumed that it was being done correctly as per the Apostle's instructions. However, if we read the Didache, for example, we see instructions that are missing from the Bible.

Sola scriptura allows for the apostles to teach orally before they write things down in gospels or epistles. There is nothing more then this in this verse.

There is no evidence whatsoever that oral traditions are abrogated in favor of some written document to one community. Yours is special pleading. I don't find any evidence that oral tradition goes away with the Bible's compilation. First of all, that ignores the formulation of the canon. Secondly, this was not practiced by the Jews, nor the Christians. Followers of God didn't need to "see it written" for something to have been from God.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The thing that is God breathed is the written word of God, the scriptures.

Not always. The words of prophets in the OT are "God breathed". The teachings of the Apostles, even before they were written, are "God breathed" Spirit-filled. Nowhere does the Bible say that only once something is committed to writing is something 'God breathed'. The writings of Paul are God breathed because they find their source in God - not because they happen to be in writing.

In fact because of a predicate nominative construction, the words "scripture" and "God breathed" are inseparable.

We aren't arguing that. I believe that Scriptures are God breathed. The question is whether it is the ONLY thing that God has filled His Spirit with. The bible says that the Church is God-breathed. WE move and have our being BECAUSE of the Spirit. The Church is God-breathed, as well. Thus, sola is not found in the Bible...

If you say that the HS is the person being God breathed, what do you do with the first two words of 2 Tim 3:16.... "All scripture."

It doesn't say "ONLY SCRIPTURE". NOR does it say what Scripture IS! How do we identify God-breathed writings from other writings? You are overlooking an absolute necessity to the equation: A living, breathing, Spirit-filled organization that can interpret such things.

If you dont understand all this grammatical mumbo jumbo, the bottom line is that it is impossible to read this text in any other way then saying that it is the scriptures that are God breathed.

Again, you are arguing something that I never denied, nor has the Church. The argument is over whether the Scriptures are the ONLY thing God-breathed. This exercise is not addressing my disagreement with Sola Scriptura. You are merely providing a RED HERRING.

Regards

 

[unred typo]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:12 pm

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God...." Paul, under the guidance and INSPIRATION of God, wrote that verse.

I would hope that we can agree that anything God would INSPIRE would be infalliable.

Sure, we can agree on that when you admit that the other books including the book of Jasher were inspired and infallible as part of the ‘all scripture’ that the early church considered as scripture. And how many and which versions has God protected from error? Are you going to volunteer to tell us which books are inspired or would you rather some group from another century pick them for us?

 

[mondar]

"Luke" wrote in Acts that the Spirit guided the Church when making a decision against the necessity of circumcision BEFORE the New Testament was EVER written!

Francisdesales, here, I think you remember reading something a Catholic apologist said, and you cannot quite remember exactly what was taught. Sooo, let me help you out on what I think you are trying to say. Some Catholic apologists try to use the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 to say that it is a violation of sola scriptura. They try, but they fail miserably.

It is true that in Acts 15 you have the apostles making judgements on what doctrine is to be practiced and believed. It is also true that this was before any of the epistles were written. Oddly enough, this was recorded in scripture. So then, can we see that the oral traditions before enscripturation were two different doctrines? Obviously not. Not only this, but where are those apostles now? They are dead! While they were alive, they could use their memories of Christs teaching, and make such judgements.

Let me quote another passage to show how this worked.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
First, lets look at the underlined portion of the verse. It gives us a hint at context. The Holy Spirit will cause the 12 apostles to remember the very words of Jesus. Now loss of memory was not an issue. This was Spirit powered memory. My wife tells me to do something, and 5 minutes later I forget what she said (no worries, she will be happy to tell me again). This never happened with the apostles and Jesus. When the Spirit came, they always remembered the words of Jesus. Now after they died off, the day came, that no apostle remembered the words of Jesus anymore. So the apostles were behind the writing of the books of the NT, so that the memory of these words might be preserved for all time in the written word.

Not only does John 14:26 say that they would remember the words of Jesus, but they would also be taught of the Holy Spirit what the meaning of the words were. So when the Jerusalem council came, the apostles were there to remember the teachings of Jesus because they were the ones who heard his very words.

This ministry of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the last apostle. The criteria to be an apostle is mentioned in Acts 1. The successor of Judas Iscariot had to see the Lord in his earthly ministry and resurrection. That is the criteria for apostleship.
Act 1:21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Now Rome makes a false claim to be the successors to the apostles. Yet they do not meet the criteria. Nowhere is an apostles appointed, or a successor appointed that did not visually see Christ when the messiah was bodily on earth (except for Paul).

It was absolutely necessary for a written body of literature to be left behind for the saints today. This is the only way the apostles can hand down their inspired memory of the words of Jesus and its effects on the life of the Church in their own day.

The doctrine of sola scriptura includes apostolic oral revelation. I have said that before. Acts 15 is nothing more then sola scriptura in action. The apostles were not passing something down orally, but Luke was recording it!!!! How can acts 15 be used as a defense of oral revelation when it was written down!!! That is sola scriptura!!

IF the Holy Spirit, God's breath, is leading the Church, then it goes without saying that BOTH oral and written teachings, traditions, of the Apostles are infallible. Thus, God's breath not only was involved in the writing of Scriptures, but in the teaching of the faithful, to include oral teachings passed down. God's breath was active in the life of the Church, and Jesus has promised that it will REMAIN active.

I think this is your application of 2 Tim 3:16? Of course such an application is totally unrelated to 2 Tim 3:16, but that is your tradition being inserted into the text. To ignore that the text of 2Tim 3:16 actually says "scripture is God breathed" and to make it "the Holy Spirit is God breathed" serves your tradition. What can I say here? Can I peel your fingers off your tradition one by one? I doubt it, your grip upon your traditons is a death grip that I dont think can be broken. You cannot see the scriptures because of this mountain of a tradition. For this reason you absolutely must deny that 2Tim 3:16 says "all scripture is God breathed." What can I say? I can only point out that this is not what the text says.

If one can follow this idea, then one can see how "sola" scriptura fails, since it is no longer "sola". And this is my second point. NOWHERE does 2 Timothy 3 say that the Bible ALONE is the sole rule of our faith. While it does say that Scriptures are God-breathed, elsewhere, and often, the Bible ALSO says that the CHURCH IS GOD-BREATHED.

The scriptures says the Church is theopneustos? Yeah right, now If I challenge you to show me one text that connects the words Church and theopneustos, you will go silent and this will be totally ignored. Come on, please dont be so shallow. Anyone can get a computer and do a word search on theopneustos and see that the word nowhere occurs in a context were it refers to the church. Why do you make up such things? I honestly think you would make up any tale in the service of your traditions. Yes, I should not be condescending, but please help me out a little here. I sit here and shake my head thinking it is incredible that someone would say the things you do. We go over and over the same things. You point out that the word "alone" does not occur in the passage. I point out that the word scripture is the only word attached to the word "theopneustos."

Tell me, if I had a box of 100 red balls and no other balls, and I said that that box contains red balls alone, would you dig through the box to find the word "alone" and then say look, I disproved the theory that this box contains red balls alone. The point of the analogy is that only the written word of God, the scriptures is said to be theopneustos. I have said over and over again, that the word "alone" does not occur, but it does not have to occur for it to be true. Does the word "trinity" appear in the bible? Do you know why I keep saying that the word trinity does not occur in the bible? Do you believe in the trinity? Show me the word trinity in the bible? Yet we both know the concept is biblical.

I dont know why I bother, I know you will again repeat the same silly argument that the word "alone" no where occurs in the bible. When I have explained why the doctrine is in 2Timothy 3:16, you just bury any verse I speak of in your traditions so that you cannot even hardly read the words of the verse.

Elsewhere, the Bible says that pastors and teachers of the faith PERFECT the Christian. Elsewhere, the Bible says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. How could this be, IF the Church is not God-breathed?

We went over this all before. You never bothered to read my previous posts. I am amazed at your lack of knowledge of the scriptures. I have to tell you where the passages are you are referring to and then explain every one of them. You have absolutely nothing but your traditions. You present yourself as one who knows something of the scriptures, yet you cannot even find the passages you are referring to. You dazzel me with your shallowness, but complain when I get condescending. Please, help me out. At least find the passages you think you are referring to and work with the passages, rather then saying "well somewhere out there in the bible I once heard something like this..."

The Church as the foundation of truth is probably (I can never be sure with your vague understanding of your own traditions) a reference to Ephesians 2:20.
Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
In this passage it is not teaching the infallibility of the Church. Rather, the subject is the basis of the Church. The Church is rooted in the teachings of the apostles and prophets. Now this text most likely is referring to the NT alone. Notice the order of apostles and prophets. If it included the OT, it would most likely have the order prophets and apostles. The prophets in this passage are most likely NT prophets like Agabus in Acts 21:10.

The idea of the passage is then that the origin of the Church was rooted in the NT written revelation of the apostles and the oral teachings of the prophets. Without them, there would be no NT Church.

Notice Christ is not the foundation in this passage. Christ is the foundation of our faith and our salvation, but this passage is not about faith or salvation. Christ is here the chief cornerstone, he sets the foundation (the apostles and prophets) strait. The Church is the superstructure that is built on top of the revelation of the apostles. The Church being referred to here is all the elect of all generations since Pentecost. It is not referring to Rome, nor protestantism, nor any denomination or organized Church, but it refers to the mystical body of Christ. Notice that the word "Church" does not actually occur in the passage. Rather it is the word "ye" (see 2:19). This "you" refers to the saved, not an organization.

This has been the teachings of the Church since the very beginning.

The beginning... You who follow Rome are brainwashed that all your traditions go back to the apostles. There is absolutely no reason in that at all. Just simply look at the Marian doctrines. Show me the bodily asumption of Mary in any of the ECFs in the 1st 4 centuries. I think I once read that in the 9th century some small heretical group actually believed the doctrine, and that was the first it was believed in any vaguely christian group. Can you imagine that... how many ECFs believe in the bodily asumption of Mary... a big goose egg, 0, none!

Look at the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the ECFs. None. Oh sure, use your Roman tradition and say... Ahh yes, the Roman Bishops claimed primacy early. I know your thinking, if you see a claim to Roman primacy in the 1st 4 centuries, you automaticly read into this a claim of papal infallibility. That is the way your tradition works. There was no claim of papal infallibility in the first 4 centuries. Which of the Early church councils claimed papal infallibility? That was a later developement. Rome has evolved out of the early Church. Why? Because Rome is so absorbed in her own traditions and claims of power and authority that she cannot look honestly at the early church.

Well, I think I will go to bed. I have read what is below, and it is the typical Roman traditions placed over the statements of the ECFs. When the ECFs use the word "tradition" Rome reads all its own theology back into the word "tradition." That would be the same as a Mormon reading all their theology back into the ECFs if they find the word "angel." They could say look, see, Mormoni really did exist. The ECFs were mormon!!!

The word tradition was commonly used among the ECFs. My quote from Basil demonstrated several things. First, there were different traditions. It would be like going into a book store and finding all the different opinions. Second, Basil was suggesting that traditions can change if we come to the scriptures. Scriptures were over tradition in his judgment. Yes, Basil considered the fathers, and the council of Nicea authorative, but if one disagreed with the council of nicea, there was still the higher authority, the scriptures. If you wish me to go over your material on the ECFs in detail, let me know. This is enough for me this evening.

Have a good night.

Now, you mention St. Basil. He, like the other Church Fathers, understood the place of Scriptures within our faith. We draw our beliefs in God from Scriptures, but we do not do so OUTSIDE of the teachings of the Church, thus, Sola Scriptura was never taught by these Fathers. For example:

Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).

Or,

To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency." Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

His was not a new teaching:

Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

0r

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…†Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

Nor was this:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:6-9

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:1-2

"sola" Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, nor was it taught by the Church. It is an emasculation of the teachings given by Christ to the Apostles. It leaves us open to the whims of recent fads and does NOT help us in regards to new problems faced by our world. NOWHERE does the Bible speak about cloning. However, it is a moral issue that the Church must face. Without the Spirit-guided Tradition, how does the Church continue to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth?

Regards

 

[Guest]

quote by aLoneVoice on Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:12 pm

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God...." Paul, under the guidance and INSPIRATION of God, wrote that verse.

I would hope that we can agree that anything God would INSPIRE would be infalliable.

Sure, we can agree on that when you admit that the other books including the book of Jasher were inspired and infallible as part of the ‘all scripture’ that the early church considered as scripture. And how many and which versions has God protected from error? Are you going to volunteer to tell us which books are inspired or would you rather some group from another century pick them for us?

Have I ever said that Jasher wasn't? I just have not read a convincing arguement from you.

 

[biblecatholic]

mondar,

seriously, your posts are way too long. Maybe cut them by half or 3/4

 

[unred typo]

Have I ever said that Jasher wasn't? I just have not read a convincing arguement from you.

You’re waiting for a convincing argument from me before you check out what early Christians believed to be God’s word? ....wow....