Sola Scriptura began in 70AD?

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Have you even read this thread? Am I going to have to repeat myself for you too?

It's not a Catholic problem becaues we don't rely on the bible alone. And yes, the bible does require interpreting there's no way around it. It's reality. If you truly believe what you wrote then explain the over 20,000 sects of bible-only Christians. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

And what Augustine says holds true. Scripture is paramount, but so is that other thing that Jesus left us with. As I'm sure you know, Augustine was not a bible-only Christian becuase he knew that SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK. Take a second look at what Augustine is saying, and the order in which he says it.

Augustine is saying what the Reformers said, the Scripture is paramount. "Sacred Tradition" is not above or beside (co-paramount?) with the Scripture. If it was, corruption of apostolic doctrine in the church such as exists in the Roman Catholic Church both in the 1500's and today would not have occurred. In other words, Luther never would have tried to reform if it was so. There is only one infallible source. Sacred Tradition does not work.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by cheezgrits

But yet, isn't there more books of the Bible that have been "removed" or edited? If it IS to be the final authority with no interpretation, then y'all better start gathering up rams, lambs, pigeons, etc and start burning them on the altar.

Soooo, apparently, it DOES need some interpretation from some authority sources.

Let me interpret my post for you, so you can apply it. The bible is the authority in itself since it is God's words. All that is within it that pertains to salvation is clear to both the learned and the unlearned so that they may be saved. That does not need interpretation. Where interpretation comes in is in application of the word to our Christian walk. Even then, most of it does not require interpretation, since Jesus and the apostles are abundantly vocal on the fundamentals of the faithful walk such as good works, being baptized, prayer, and attitude. Those things however are applied differently depending on interpretation.

[cheezgrits]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

Let me interpret my post for you, so you can apply it. The bible is the authority in itself since it is God's words. All that is within it that pertains to salvation is clear to both the learned and the unlearned so that they may be saved. That does not need interpretation. Where interpretation comes in is in application of the word to our Christian walk. Even then, most of it does not require interpretation, since Jesus and the apostles are abundantly vocal on the fundamentals of the faithful walk such as good works, being baptized, prayer, and attitude. Those things however are applied differently depending on interpretation.

Oh, now that makes sense. Thank you.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

Augustine is saying what the Reformers said, the Scripture is paramount. "Sacred Tradition" is not above or beside (co-paramount?) with the Scripture.

No, the Reformers were taking a PART of what Augustine said to suit their needs. Augustine converted to Catholicism, upheld the Catholic Church's sanctity, and referred to, depended upon, and appealed to Sacred Tradtion which as I've said countless times goes hand-in-hand with Scripture. Here are just a few quotes from Augustine that you may have overlooked. :ahem:

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.” Letter of Augustine to Januarius

“These are things of a kind that are not prescribed by the authority of Scripture nor by the Tradition of the universal Church, and they serve no good purpose for the amending of one’s life, but are insisted upon simply because someone thinks up a reason for them or because someone was accustomed to such in his own country or because on a pilgrimage somewhere he saw them done and through they must be more correct because they were quite unlike his own customs." Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation'

If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation'

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority.” Baptism

“Do not raise against us the authority of Cyprian as favoring the repetition of Baptism, but join us in Cyprian’s example for the preservation of unity. For this question of Baptism had not yet been completely worked out, but still the Church kept the most wholesome practice of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was given; healing what was wounded in heretics and schismatics, not curing what was already sound. I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.” Baptism

I can dig up more if you truly think it necessary. And what about all the other Church Fathers, Zguy? I have tons and tons of material for you, the majority pre-Augustine, if you want it.

Originally Posted by Zguy28

If it was, corruption of apostolic doctrine in the church such as exists in the Roman Catholic Church both in the 1500's and today would not have occurred. In other words, Luther never would have tried to reform if it was so. There is only one infallible source. Sacred Tradition does not work.

The only corruption was similar to those Protestant televangelists begging for donations today, but that's not corruption of doctrine, Zguy. It's rather ironic that you would say that for it was Luther who corrupted doctrine by creating his own that was never upheld by the Church from Jesus up to the 1500s. In other words, Sola Scriptura. Had Luther kept to reforming the Church from wtihin we'd call him a saint, but because he chose to break with Apostolic Tradition we call him a heretic instead.

Again, I will reiterate. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK. In fact, the very fact that you are resorting to Augustine hammers that home.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Zguy28

Let me interpret my post for you, so you can apply it. The bible is the authority in itself since it is God's words. All that is within it that pertains to salvation is clear to both the learned and the unlearned so that they may be saved. That does not need interpretation. Where interpretation comes in is in application of the word to our Christian walk. Even then, most of it does not require interpretation, since Jesus and the apostles are abundantly vocal on the fundamentals of the faithful walk such as good works, being baptized, prayer, and attitude. Those things however are applied differently depending on interpretation.

And here you still depend on interpretation. You say the "fundamentals" of the faith are clear, but baptism and pre-destination are two off the top of my head that are not agreed upon by all Protestants using the Sola Scriptura method, both being what one would consider "fundamental" to salvation. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

[Zguy28]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

And here you still depend on interpretation. You say the "fundamentals" of the faith are clear, but baptism and pre-destination are two off the top of my head that are not agreed upon by all Protestants using the Sola Scriptura method, both being what one would consider "fundamental" to salvation. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

Within Protestantism, baptism and soteriology may differ in mode, but being an Arminian or Calvinist in theology does not a lost person make.

What I meant by baptism is baptism in general, whether by immersion credo baptism or sprinkling paedobaptism does not a lost person make either.

[Starman3000m]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Have you even read this thread? Am I going to have to repeat myself for you too?

It's not a Catholic problem becaues we don't rely on the bible alone. And yes, the bible does require interpreting there's no way around it. It's reality. If you truly believe what you wrote then explain the over 20,000 sects of bible-only Christians. SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

And what Augustine says holds true. Scripture is paramount, but so is that other thing that Jesus left us with. As I'm sure you know, Augustine was not a bible-only Christian becuase he knew that SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK. Take a second look at what Augustine is saying, and the order in which he says it.

Sola Scriptura Does Not Work For Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Prosperity Gospel preachers, and all extra-Biblical denominations BECAUSE it exposes and destabilizes the misguided tenets of their false teachings.

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

I love you and it's my God-given duty to ensure you stop following a false doctrine because your salvation very well may be at stake. Oh, and one last time just for you, IS -- SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT WORK.

I think you've won my heart. That is the nicest thing anyone can say to another human being. Bring Libby, Bird Dog & Onel tomorrow and we'll have lunch. I'm sure you know the place...

Originally Posted by Radiant1

No, the bible can't interpret itself because it's a book, and a book can only be filtered by the person reading it. If you're reading the bible you are most certainly interpreting it, but how do you know you are interpreting it correctly as intended by it's Author?

How do we know? Easy! Here are just some of the verses that God, the writers & the Bible interpret for us:

7 Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides...

9 The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction...

15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages... The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17)

Here are some that require explanation because, left to our own interpretation, we will surely get it wrong. Every one of these, if taken literally, would cause a lot of problems and false teachings. We let other verses explain them so we can get the correct meaning from them. I won't explain them unless someone asks:

Hate your Mother and Father? Luke 14v26
Call no man father? Matthew 23v9
Pluck out your eye, cut off your hand? Matthew 5v29-30
ALL who were appointed for eternal life believed? Acts 13v48
All Israel will be saved (Romans 11v26)?
Proverbs 23v31 says don’t even look at red wine but Paul told Timothy to have a little wine for his stomach condition. 1 Timothy 5v23
Exodus 20 says do not steal but Proverbs 6v30-31 says don’t despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger…
Luke 15 the lost son was dead but now is alive
John 6 – Eat His flesh & drink His blood.
Jesus said in Matthew 7 v 1: “do not judge…” but then He said in John 7 v 24: “when you judge, make a right judgment.”
A woman will be saved through childbirth? – 1 Timothy 2 v 15
John 20v23 says that the Apostles can forgive sins, James 5v16 says confess our sins to one another but Mark 2v7 says only God can forgive sins?
Their eyes were heavy – Matthew 26 v 43
This is the last hour - 1 John 2 v 18

[onel0126]

Originally Posted by ItalianScallion

Bring Libby, Bird Dog & Onel tomorrow and we'll have lunch. I'm sure you know the place...

Thanks for the offer but I have Mass and then I teach CCD afterwards. Tomorrow's a feast day in the Church--you remember--smells and bells and all--Epiphany--you may have heard of it....

[ItalianScallion (Premo)]

Originally Posted by onel0126

Thanks for the offer but I have Mass and then I teach CCD afterwards. Tomorrow's a feast day in the Church--you remember--smells and bells and all--Epiphany--you may have heard of it....

I'm usually there until about 1pm. I'm sure most of you are out of church by then, and I'd be willing to wait if you all were coming...