The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sola Scriptura

The doctrine of the Trinity—like the Biblical Canon--cannot be derived from Scripture alone. See the N.T. (esp. Mt 28:19) and these sites for to see evidence of the Church’s constant oral Word about God:.
http://www.catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp

or

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/god.htm

The Scriptures are the written Word of God. The oral Word of God is the spoken Word of God. The two never disagree, which is why the Catholic Biblical interpretations are constantly in evidence throughout history (cf. Is 59:21, Is 9:7), while nobody in Jesus took the protestant position between 100 and 1100 A.D., for example. See:
http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

or

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm

The Catholic Church—the only historical Christian group which lives up to Mt 5:14--historically has always believed that the Holy Spirit is God, and that the Son is God, and likewise the Father. Pope Dionysius was writing about his in the 200s, for example. She has also always seen the Scriptures as inseparable from the oral Word taught by “the fathers” (2 Tim 1:13, 2:2).


This assumes the Sola Scriptura oral tradition. The Word of God is expressed in two forms which are equally indispensable and equal: Scripture and Tradition.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

In fact, there is no non-Catholic historical source of the N.T. Canon, and the earliest complete version of the N.T. Canon I know of is the Pope Damasus’s list from the Synod of Rome.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/canon.htm

The fact that the Bible does not give it’s own Canon proves that Sola Scriptura is false. (Very few Biblical books—at best—claim to be the inerrant Word of God. The Bible doesn’t even teach that the Canon is closed at a certain point. Jude 3 doesn’t say that of itself. The Word as a whole, in union with the Father and Spirit, does say this explicitly.

Many early Christians didn’t go by S.S. ,since many were illiterate, and since Christ never taught this. God wouldn’t give a doctrine condemnatory of any human being.

[i]“Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition [cf 2 Thes 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, 34; 2 Tim 1:13 and 2:2] anifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.”[i]
For more of this article: [“Scripture and Tradition”. Catholic Anwers. San Diego, 2004:]
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp


I don’t know what you mean by Roman state Church. The idea that the Catholic Church changed her doctrines at the time of Constantine—or lost her spiritual purity—seems to be a convenient historical myth to perhaps distract from the total incoherence of the distinctive reformation doctrines with early Church history and the Scriptures.
http://www.catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp


I’m all about the analogy of faith. There are many verses teaching us to go by the Scriptures, but none saying that the written Word is more reliable or superior than the oral Word, or that an individual—apart from the Body of Christ—is the best interpreter of Scripture. Cf. 2 Pt 1:20.

As to the analogy of faith—another non-explicit idea: this is constant Catholic teaching. That is one of the main principles of Biblical interpretation. The other one—which many are missing--is that you must do as the good Jews and the Apostles did, which is to read the Scriptures in union with the oral Word (cf. 2 Tim 2:2, Gal 1:8.)


Jesus was the Word. He went by the Scriptures as they are indispensable to the Church, but he did not look to them alone! Cf. Jn 8:26. He looked to what the Father taught Him, and to the Scriptures, as interpreted by what he heard from the Father, His Magisterium. This is what historical Christians do. Cf. 1 Cor 4:15, which shows how Paul reflects the fatherhood of God to the Church. Jesus’s disciples didn’t go by the Scriptures “alone”. They went by the Scriptures and what they learned from Jesus’s words and example.


Exactly. This is the oral Word. And we know that everything Jesus said is the Word of God, though much of it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Cf. Jn 20:30, Jn 21:25. I think that if Covenant were based on Scripture alone, Jesus would have written the N.T. from the start.


Right, and this Word is written and oral. Cf. 2 Thes 2:15, 1 Thes 1:8, 2:13, Dt 6:6-7.


Well done. I think we are on the “same page”, meaning: interpreting the Scriptures the way the Church always has.

[quote’Martin Luther & the Bible
Martin Luther removed 7 books from the Old Testament:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Baruch & Judith.
Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
- Revelation 22:18-19

General Rules for Scriptural Debates
1. Not all Christian Beliefs are found directly in Scripture.
Example: “Trinity” is not in Scripture

2. The Bible is NOT the sole rule of Faith.
Example: 1 Timothy 3:15
_________________________
YBIC,
Gabriel [/quote]

Amen. That covers most of the verses I would usually bring up, other than 2 Jn 12 and 3 Jn 13, Neh 8:8, and so no.

May we all realize our weakness, equality, and seek the full unity of the Christian faith through the Holy Spirit.

P.S. The habit of citing Scripture through chapter and verse ,and with precision, is in itself an oral tradition not found in Scripure. Christ Himself did not quote Scripture precisely. Cf. Jn 7:38. Personally, I think it detracts as much as it adds to discourse. It has a tendency to make us very un-childlike. However, I do it when necessary, I hope.