The Bible Alone is Not Enough

[Quiddity]

That's exactly what I DIDN'T say. But I do find the approach quite similar to sola scripturists.

This is where we part company:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. Roman Catholic Catechism

That flies in the face of Jesus being our High Priest and the Spirit being our guide. Yeah, that would be a deal breaker for me.

Me too. Just be sure you customize that paragraph for Pete.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of Pete alone. His authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 - Pete's Cathecism

 

[James the Persian]

No, again I am not the one who is getting huffy about being misunderstood. Here is someone who is:

You weren't getting huffy about being misunderstood but about being labeled. The problem is that nobody actually labeled you.

Why do you think Google is so "confused" about the Orthodox church then?

Google is confused about nothing - it's just a search engine. You appear to be confused about exactly what a search engine is. It's an authority on nothing, all it does is collect documents, by whoever, that have the words in them that you entered in your string. Most of the blame for your poor results lies with your poor search string - garbage in garbage out - which is why you ended up with Oriental Orthodox heirarchs in there. Most of the rest of the blame lies with westerners who seem unable to believe that Orthodox have no equivalent to the Pope no matter how often we tell them and yet write articles on the subject that are misleading. A little lies with the Patriarch of Constantinople for not correcting such mistakes more forcefully. Believe me, he has absolutely no jurisdiction in my local church whatsoever, so in what is he the head of the Church as a whole?

James

 

[James the Persian]

66 Books for most as well?

No, most Christians (Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, which together make somewhere in the region of 1.3-1.4 billion) have more than 66 books. That is the reduced Protestant canon.

James

 

[James the Persian]

Actually, there are plenty of scriptural evidence outside of the apocrypha for beliefs such as purgatory. But I digress. :sorry1:

I would disagree with that (obviously). I don't believe that there is any +Scriptural support whatsoever for purgatory. I don't doubt that there's something that Rome reads in that way, but it can't be that clear because the east has always rejected, and indeed condemned, the idea. And remember that our Deuterocanon (Apocrypha is a horrible Protestant term to use and is really only properly applied to completely exra-canonical books, like the aforementioned Gospel of Thomas) is actually larger than yours. I'm decidedly of the opinion that the Reformers (and I contend it was them, *Paul*, I warned you about revisionist Church history before) removed the Deuterocanon more due to being enamoured with MT (and that probably simply because Rome didn't use it) than with its support for certain doctrines that they disliked. I mean, they may have disliked the idea of prayer for the dead but that doesn't depend on purgatory (for we have the former yet oppose the latter), certainly doesn't support indulgences and hence was hardly one of their main issues with Rome. Prayer for the dead is about the only non-Protestant practice I can think of that the Deuterocanon clearly supports, though I may well be missing others.

James

 

[*Paul*]

To be truthful i am undecided on this point, i simply don't know who to believe, did the Waldensians use the same canon as me? and what does it prove if they did? Did the protestants change it? when was it first changed? I had a look a wycliffes and his has the apocrypha as did the 1611 KJV but they reasoned (which reasoning if true is weighty indeed):


(1) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. (2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration. (3) These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. (4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church. (5) They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places. (6) It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. (7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.(McClure, Translators Revived)
Which is why it was put between the inspired books.

If I have a different canon from the one the catholic church decided upon then they did not give me my current bible but the canon was revised by the protestant church.
This for me is a possibility I am willing to accept and you may make a protestant out of me yet. The conclusion that I can't see coming out of this is that I owe the catholic church any loyalty, or that it means all their other traditions are in accordance with the will of God.

No one has yet shown me what my faith is lacking due to my scripture only stance that the Church in the book of acts had. No one has shown me a tradition that can be proven beyond reasonable dispute that has come from the apostles not written in scripture.

 

[James the Persian]

*Paul*,

That's a very fair answer, but I just have to comment on the notes that you provide, which frankly are rather ignorant.

(1) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

True, but so what? Hebrew had ceased to be the language used by the Jews at the time most of them were written. Many of them were writen, therefore, in Aramaic. Whgat difference does that make? The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, so an argument which appears to confine all inspiration to Hebrew is, frankly, unsustainable for a Christian.

(2) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

Again, so what? There are plenty of other books in the Bible where the author makes no claim to inspiration.

(3) These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

This, however, is false. They were considered Scripture by the Jews in Alexandria who completed the Septuagint 100 years before Christ and it is that version that is overwhelmingly quoted in the NT, which clearly contradicts the assertion made here. There is absolutely no doubt that Christ would have been familiar with the Septuagint, having been raised in Egypt and then the heavily hellenised Galilee. The fact that the Masoretes centuries after Christ didn't consider them Scripture is irrelevant.

(4) They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

And this is the most rank ignorance of the lot. From the very beginning of the Church, as is witnessed to by its use by both the writers of the NT and other Church Fathers, the Church's OT was the Septuagint, and that contains the Deuterocannical books.

(5) They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

If we exclude all the books with fabulous statements or which seem to produce contradictions, we'd be left with far fewer than 66, and just who decides what is fabulous? In any case, this is only a problem for those with very narrow literalist and inerrantist views of Scripture.

(6) It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

And this argument isn't even worthy of a 10 year old. It presupposes firstly that the Deuterocanon is not Scripture (as if it is then it cannot be at variance with it, obviously) and hence is a circular argument and, furthermore, assumes that the Protestant interpretation (and that is all it is) of the faith is correct and that, therefore, Scripture should be made to conform to it, which flies directly in the face of sola scriptura and is truly pathetic.

(7) It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination, and magical incantation.(McClure, Translators Revived)

It doesn't at all. The Deuterocanon might make mention of such things but it certainly doesn't teach them as being part of the faith. Again as for the 'fabulous' statements etc., were we to remove all books that similarly mention these things, we'd be left with far less than 66 books. I'm not even sure we'd be left with much of a Bible at all. Maybe that's why some Protestants give out collections of the New Testament and Psalms?

Frankly, these notes hold little water and smack of seeking a justification for the removal of the Deuterocanon after the fact rather than being the reason for their removal in the first place. I believe only point 3 really played much of a part in that process (other than 6, which being circular must perforce be rejected by anyone who is intellectually honest), and that is based on the erroneous belief that the canon of the Masoretes pre-dates the canon in the Septuagint, when in actual fact it post-dates it by centuries.

James

 

[*Paul*]

James, i'll give what you have written further considertaion, it would help of course if I had read all of the apocrypha or deutrocanon as you prefer it to be called but here is something interesting:

Catechetical Lectures Cyril of Jerusalem (somewhere around 350 ad i think)​

17. Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310104.htm

12. But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema Galatians 1:8-9. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them an the table of your heart.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310105.htm

It seems to me as though even tradition must have it's foundation in the scriptures.

This is the crux of the matter to me, the scriptures came from God that we all agree on and according to cyril here and the evangelical faith our practice and doctrine must be in accordance with them. Cyril as i have underlined said don't believe me unless the proof of what i say is in the scriptures, this is what we teach and what i fully believe. Everything must fall in line with scripture because it is our authority as the God breathed oracles. Now does the catholic church and the orthodox church do this? This is what we have debated down through the centuries and i fully believe that there are too many errors and traditions unfounded in scripture in both churches. We are always reforming if something we do is shown to us to be unscriptural we can abondon it and repent. But for the catholic church it would imply falliblity of it's teaching magisterium so semper eadem (excuse the bad latin) always the same you must be, whether you have been duped into false doctrine or not you are forced to keep it if it has been pronounced infallibly.

 

[James the Persian]

It seems to me as though even tradition must have it's foundation in the scriptures.

But if the Tradition pre-dates the Scriptures (and clearly it must) then how can it have its foundation in them? It can't. Tradition's foundation is the revelation of God and especially the teaching of Christ. Some of this was later written down and the most important part of this written Tradition is Holy Scripture.

This is the crux of the matter to me, the scriptures came from God that we all agree on and according to cyril here and the evangelical faith our practice and doctrine must be in accordance with them.

But nobody denies this.

Cyril as i have underlined said don't believe me unless the proof of what i say is in the scriptures, this is what we teach and what i fully believe.

And this we believe also, that's why the collection of Scripture is described as the canon - the measuring rod - everything is compared to it, particularly new teachings. This ensures that any teaching conforms to Tradition rather than contradicts it, but that doesn't mean that everything is contained within Scripture - Scripture doesn't even allow for that interpretation. It is not sola scriptura, but believe me, no part of Tradition is so highly valued as Scripture. I'm surprised you think it might be.

Everything must fall in line with scripture because it is our authority as the God breathed oracles.

No, it's not our authority - that's Christ and the Church He founded. It is, however, the Church's most valuable written record of the Revelation of God to man. The Bible is not the Word of God that has authority over us - that is Christ.

Now does the catholic church and the orthodox church do this?

With the exception of the way you view Scripture, I think I've just demonstrated that we, at least, do. Certainly nothing about our faith contradicts the words you quoted above.

This is what we have debated down through the centuries and i fully believe that there are too many errors and traditions unfounded in scripture in both churches.

As I demonstrated it is an absolute impossibility for the Tradition to be founded in Scripture. Firstly because it pre-dates the writing of Scripture and secondly because Scripture is just the most important writtten part of Holy Tradition. Scripture and Tradition simply cannot be separated in the way you seem to wish to do. If you meant not found in Scripture rather than unfounded in Scripture, then you yourself, as a baptist, hold to such Traditions. You won't find Christmas or Easter in Scripture, nor the Gregorian calendar you use to fix them. Just because something is not clearly mentioned in Scripture does not make it wrong - and that is not what St. Cyril says. I challenge you to find a single aspect of Orthodox Holy Tradition that you can show to contradict Scripture, however, and hence fall foul of St. Cyril's warning. I'm so confident that you can't that were I a gambler I'd place money on it.

We are always reforming if something we do is shown to us to be unscriptural we can abondon it and repent. But for the catholic church it would imply falliblity of it's teaching magisterium so semper eadum (excuse the bad latin) always the same you must be, whether you have been duped into false doctrine or not you are forced to keep it if it has been pronounced infallibly.

Yes, but you see both you and the RCC espouse ideas that we must simply reject and it is these ideas which cause you to change and hence need to reform. Not for nothing is innovation practically considered a synonym for heresy in the Orthodox Church. We simply don't change anything lightly at all. The Liturgy we use most Sundays is even over 1500 years old, and we occasionally use older ones. I'm confident that I could go back to the 5th century, and pretty sure far earlier than that, and recognise no change at all in faith and barely any change in practice, certainly nothing of significance. No Protestant can say that and nor can the RCC. If you don't change, what can there be to reform? Probably the most telling proof of our lack of change is how similar we and the OOs are despite a millennium and a half of separation - you'd still have a hard time getting a sheet of paper in the crack between our faiths and that's precisely because both communions take seriously the admonishments of Fathers such as St. Cyril. Moreover it is proof that those most loved targets of anti-Catholic protestants, the Ecumenical Council merely clarified rather than invented doctrine - for we only share three in common and yet we do not disgarre even on the Orthodoxy of the seventh called long after the schism and in response to a heresy that the OOs never suffered (Iconoclasm).That we are divided at all, in my opinion, is down to an entirely human and preventable tragedy.

James

 

[*Paul*]

But if the Tradition pre-dates the Scriptures (and clearly it must) then how can it have its foundation in them? It can't. Tradition's foundation is the revelation of God and especially the teaching of Christ. Some of this was later written down and the most important part of this written Tradition is Holy Scripture.

But how can it be shown that any tradition currently held does predate the writing down of the scriptures some 15-30 years after christ, it is a very small timeframe, Cyprian doesn't appeal to any oral tradition but rather says that what is taught must be tested against scripture. Obviously as you pointed out scripture is the rule or how we measure truth and error. So why should a tradition have any authority at all if it is not in the scriptures? This oral tradition idea sounds like gnostic leven.

And this we believe also, that's why the collection of Scripture is described as the canon - the measuring rod - everything is compared to it, particularly new teachings. This ensures that any teaching conforms to Tradition rather than contradicts it, but that doesn't mean that everything is contained within Scripture - Scripture doesn't even allow for that interpretation.

Scripture does allow for that interpretation, scripture is given for the purpose that we might believe on Jesus and by believeing have life in his name, they are complete for that purpose. Also scripture is given so that we can be fully furnished for every good work. It tells us how we are to conducts ourselves in and out of the church. For reproof, nurture and chastisment. I cannot see what scripture could possibly be lacking, in my openeing statement on this thread i posted a link in which i give a list of how scripture is complete.

No, it's not our authority - that's Christ and the Church He founded.

The church is lead by fallible men but the word of God can not fail.

It is, however, the Church's most valuable written record of the Revelation of God to man. The Bible is not the Word of God that has authority over us - that is Christ.

Christ has authority over us as, all we have now is his Spirit and His writings and the writings of the apostles which he founded.

As I demonstrated it is an absolute impossibility for the Tradition to be founded in Scripture. Firstly because it pre-dates the writing of Scripture and secondly because Scripture is just the most important writtten part of Holy Tradition.

This has yet to be shown, what tradition if any is not contained in scripture, predates scripture and is apostolic without reasonble dispute.

You won't find Christmas or Easter in Scripture, nor the Gregorian calendar you use to fix them. Just because something is not clearly mentioned in Scripture does not make it wrong - and that is not what St. Cyril says.

As i said before we have traditions, if scripture doesn't comment either way then there can be no problem so long as the tradition does not weaken or contradict what the bible teaches. But that kind of tradition is better thought of as a custom not a tradtion with a capital T. The problem I have is with authoritative Traditions which are treated as though they are from God with no proof.

I challenge you to find a single aspect of Orthodox Holy Tradition that you can show to contradict Scripture, however, and hence fall foul of St. Cyril's warning. I'm so confident that you can't that were I a gambler I'd place money on it.

I'll have a look at that soon.

Yes, but you see both you and the RCC espouse ideas that we must simply reject and it is these ideas which cause you to change and hence need to reform.

The first church under the apostles needed reforming at many times as did the churches in asia that Jesus exhorted in Revelation. We can fall into error and if we do we must be brought back into line with the word of God, our hearts must say with Jesus "lo, I come to do Thy will O God".

Not for nothing is innovation practically considered a synonym for heresy in the Orthodox Church. We simply don't change anything lightly at all. The Liturgy we use most Sundays is even over 1500 years old, and we occasionally use older ones. I'm confident that I could go back to the 5th century, and pretty sure far earlier than that, and recognise no change at all in faith and barely any change in practice, certainly nothing of significance.

Should the church of God be a time capsule? You are forced into this because you value your traditions so highly and dare not change them, change isn't always an admission of error or something wrong. THe church of God is to reach the common man this it what it did in it's youth and this is something that must not change.

No Protestant can say that and nor can the RCC.

Karl keating says it. For the protestant the church is a living organism, a vine it must adapt to it's surroundings to survive and bear fruit but it must never leave it's root.

 

[*Paul*]

The very fact that you are accepting the canon, or at least initially accepted the canon, because you were told that these were the books of the Bible seems to be a type of Tradition - does it not?

Yes but it was not an authoritative one but rather a custom, not a traditon with a capital T it wasn't forced on me, i was given a bible and i accepted it. You have those yourselves such as whether the mass should be in latin or venecular or priestly dress. Protestants, Bapists and Evangelicals do have traditions but they are not binding and are better described as customs, if they are shown to be contrary to scripture then they must be repented of and abandoned.

 

[James the Persian]

But how can it be shown that any tradition currently held does predate the writing down of the scriptures some 15-30 years after christ, it is a very small timeframe, Cyprian doesn't appeal to any oral tradition but rather says that what is taught must be tested against scripture. Obviously as you pointed out scripture is the rule or how we measure truth and error. So why should a tradition have any authority at all if it is not in the scriptures? This oral tradition idea sounds like gnostic leven.

You're still trying to separate Scripture from Tradition as though the former wasn't part of the latter. It doesn't matter if I can show you a part of Tradition not found in Scripture that pre-dates its writing because the very fact that we have Scripture written down after the Crucifixion proves that the oral Tradition predates Scripture. As for oral Tradition, there's nothing gnostic about it. Do you know what that word actually means? There are no hidden teachings in Orthodoxy, no knowledge or enlightenment that can make you worthy of salvation, so there is nothing gnostic about any of it.

Scripture does allow for that interpretation, scripture is given for the purpose that we might believe on Jesus and by believeing have life in his name, they are complete for that purpose. Also scripture is given so that we can be fully furnished for every good work. It tells us how we are to conducts ourselves in and out of the church. For reproof, nurture and chastisment. I cannot see what scripture could possibly be lacking, in my openeing statement on this thread i posted a link in which i give a list of how scripture is complete.

No, Scripture does not allow for the idea that everything taught has been written down. It, in fact, expressly says that it was not. John says that all the books in the world couldn't hold the things that Christ said and did and Paul clearly refers to the transmission of oral teachings as well as written. You can suppose that these teachings were later written down if you like, but it's nothing more than baseless supposition.

The church is lead by fallible men but the word of God can not fail.

No, the Church is not lead by men at all, if by that you mean individuals - our ecclesiology simply doesn't work that way. The Church is lead by the Holy Spirit and no individual can lead it astray. Heirarchs who have tried are deposed, which is one of the reasons we so strongly opposed a monarchical papacy. The Church is an organism which does not stand or fall with the errors of any one member - hence all the synods.

Christ has authority over us as, all we have now is his Spirit and His writings and the writings of the apostles which he founded.

I don't believe we have any of Christ's writings as I don't believe He wrote anything. Surely you didn't mean that? I would add to that list, though, the writings of the Fathers, the hymns, prayers and liturgies of the Church, the canons of the Ecumenical Councils etc. It's this - all of this - which constitutes Holy Tradition.

This has yet to be shown, what tradition if any is not contained in scripture, predates scripture and is apostolic without reasonble dispute.

In whose Scripture must it not be contained, mine or yours? That would produce a rather different answer, of course. What Scripture must it predate? Just the very last book to be written? Do you consider the Didache to be 'Apostolic without reasonable dispute' (after all, those who compiled the canon did)? Whose dispute would be reasonable? Only one from your side? Your question is impossible to answer in a way that would satisfy you, I'm quite sure, but that doesn't mean it's unanswerable.

As i said before we have traditions, if scripture doesn't comment either way then there can be no problem so long as the tradition does not weaken or contradict what the bible teaches. But that kind of tradition is better thought of as a custom not a tradtion with a capital T. The problem I have is with authoritative Traditions which are treated as though they are from God with no proof.

No, the practice of celebrating certain feasts is Tradition. We also have a distinction between traditions and Tradition and this seems quite clear. You really do, however, seem to have a very grave misunderstanding as to what Tradition actually is. Might you perhaps tell me what it is you are describing as Tradition because it just sounds like you're arguing against something other than what we mean by the term.

I'll have a look at that soon.

Take your time - you'll need it.

The first church under the apostles needed reforming at many times as did the churches in asia that Jesus exhorted in Revelation. We can fall into error and if we do we must be brought back into line with the word of God, our hearts must say with Jesus "lo, I come to do Thy will O God".

You are talking of practice, not faith. Reforms of practice happen all the time, A particular church does something out of keeping with the faith, is corrected, etc. The faith cannot change, though. That was what I was talking about, not whether you have an iconostasis or an altar rail or how long your priests's beard is.

Should the church of God be a time capsule? You are forced into this because you value your traditions so highly and dare not change them, change isn't always an admission of error or something wrong. THe church of God is to reach the common man this it what it did in it's youth and this is something that must not change.

Again, I was talking of changes in th faith, not in the externals. The externals have changed in that time, but I cannot find one thing, not one article of faith that we hold to now that wasn't held to by the early Fathers and yes, this is down to holding fast to Tradition. The externals can and do change. You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm talking about completely.

Karl keating says it. For the protestant the church is a living organism, a vine it must adapt to it's surroundings to survive and bear fruit but it must never leave it's root.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, though the Church needs not adapt to its surroundings all that much at all (as in, I see little need for adaptation of the externals occurring very often) but the changes I was referring to were indeed changes to the root - doctrines that appear from nowhere and are grafted on and that cannot be found in the early Church. Ironically, the solas are exactly such doctrines, and that is what we are discussing.

James

 

[*Paul*]

Oh, and on closer look you'll find that the link is not from a Catholic source, but rather a Baptist historian who shows the problems with the idea that what Waldo used predated his time.

And Waldo's confessions also are not really his, they are Martin Bucers (almost verbatim) according to the text that I referred you to.

Sorry i remember having read it before now. I thought it looked familiar.

 

[quietlight]

Yes but it was not an authoritative one but rather a custom, not a traditon with a capital T it wasn't forced on me, i was given a bible and i accepted it. You have those yourselves such as whether the mass should be in latin or venecular or priestly dress. Protestants, Bapists and Evangelicals do have traditions but they are not binding and are better described as customs, if they are shown to be contrary to scripture then they must be repented of and abandoned.

Tradition is forced on people? Huh...

I think it has become fairly evident that there is a lot of debate over the scriptures. You yourself are not sure where you Bible came from and who compiled the books into the Bible. Yet you also pointed out earlier in this thread (I believe it was you) that the scriptures existed before the formation of biblical canons, and of course the exist after the formation of biblical canons.

So why must we have biblical canons in the first place?

Would you not agree that it was necessary at some point for someone to compile the scriptures into a canon and then claim that these are the inspired works of God? Is it possible for them to do this with the Bible alone? More importantly, is it possible for you to do this with the Bible alone?

The point in all of this (and of this entire thread) is not to show that you need the Catholic Church as your guide (that would be a much different conversation), but to find out how you, as a self proclaimed Bible alone believer, can claim that all you need is the Bible when you are actually accepting the Bible on the authority of some group, be it the Waldenses, the Reformers, or the Catholic Church, and even accepting the fact that we need to define a canon of scripture to combat heresies.

You say that you are a Bible alone believer, but in practice you seem to be accepting the Bible on the authority of something other than the Bible. Am I correct or am I missing something?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Me too. Just be sure you customize that paragraph for Pete.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of Pete alone. His authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 - Pete's Cathecism

Dude, now I am offended. That is so dripping with sarcasm and you KNOW that I don't believe that one bit.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You weren't getting huffy about being misunderstood but about being labeled. The problem is that nobody actually labeled you.

Quietlight did and apologised. Why are you so fixated on this? Do you HAVE to smear me with this martyr crap?

Google is confused about nothing

I agree. It's a great gauge to see how others perceive YOU. If I don't like the results, I try and find out WHY and take corrective actions. Surely you learned that with your dealings with search engines.

 

[Scuba Pete]

the very book they hold in their hands was assembled by men in the Council of Carthage. Men that clearly believed in catholic stuff.

Interesting. So it's your contention that the Spirit had nothing to do with this? Somehow, I don't think this is what you actualy believe! How about the men who WROTE the scriptures? Did they refer to themselves as Catholic?

 

[James the Persian]

Quietlight did and apologised. Why are you so fixated on this? Do you HAVE to smear me with this martyr crap?

I give up. Nobody labeled you - not even Quietlight, he apologised for assuming you were sola scripturalist, he didn't ever call you Protestant which was your complaint) you just want to play the victim and I'm sick of it. Just debate the issues instead of trying to make everything personal.

I agree. It's a great gauge to see how others perceive YOU. If I don't like the results, I try and find out WHY and take corrective actions. Surely you learned that with your dealings with search engines.

You really wouldn't like where this line of reasoning would take you, I promise. You really think that looking at how ignorant outsiders see you is a way of judging your beliefs? If so then why do you constantly complain about others labeling you? Surely, their impression of you is far more accurate than you could ever be?

James

 

[jeffrey]

Why stop at Protestants? Why not what Buddhists believe? Or Wiccans? Or for that matter, atheists? Or anybody that believes in something different then your own beliefs?

 

[James the Persian]

Why stop at Protestants? Why not what Buddhists believe? Or Wiccans? Or for that matter, atheists? Or anybody that believes in something different then your own beliefs?

Huh? So far as I'm aware, you have to be a Christian to adhere to the idea of sola scriptura, which is what this thread is all about. Nobody was talking about different beliefs in general. Really the discussion has been about the intellectual consistency (or rather lack of it, in my opinion) of claiming to adhere to the Bible alone when the Bible does not define itself. I'm utterly unaware of any non-Christian religion holding to the Bible alone and, frankly, can't see how one could possibly exist.

James

 

[jeffrey]

Huh? So far as I'm aware, you have to be a Christian to adhere to the idea of sola scriptura, which is what this thread is all about. Nobody was talking about different beliefs in general. Really the discussion has been about the intellectual consistency (or rather lack of it, in my opinion) of claiming to adhere to the Bible alone when the Bible does not define itself. I'm utterly unaware of any non-Christian religion holding to the Bible alone and, frankly, can't see how one could possibly exist.

James

I was responding to the OP, not the opinions that followed.
Before I start posting, I want to make sure my intentions are clear. I am simply looking for good conversation and seeing other people's viewpoints. I am a Roman Catholic and love my faith. I do have a lot of questions about why some protestants believe what they believe.

This particular post is to look into why many protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura'. Even if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but you believe that all a person needs is to read the bible to get to know Christ, this question would apply to you.

So here is my question: if the Bible alone is enough, can anyone tell me when the Bible was actually compiled into the version that we know today?