Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
If you believe this to be true, where in the Bible do you find it taught? Personally, I don't believe it's there. Yes, the Bible does say, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." but that's not saying that the Bible is a complete record of God's dealings with mankind. That's kind of like saying that "all grapes are fruit" is comparable to saying, "Grapes are the only fruit."
Back to flesh, soulish and spiritual natures, (1Cor2 and 1 Cor 3).Each of those have their own understanding of Scripture. There was time when Paul and his hand picked helpers were able to direct spiritual flow who gets what, it was a very short time, now it is mostly lost and cast in stone, dead. Sola Scripture must be 50 Gates of Understanding spiritual concept, system and requires a lot of midnight candle burning...
"Catholic Church officials cited a list of books of scripture presented as having been made canonical at the Council of Rome (382). Later, the Catholic Church formally affirmed its canon of scripture with the Synod of Hippo (393), followed by a Council of Carthage (397), another Council of Carthage (419), the Council of Florence (1431-1449), and the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The canon consists of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, for a total of 73 books in the Catholic Bible."
The Council(s) have been including the Apocrypha as part of their canon since 382. They have not wavered since then.
The Council of Rome 382 was quite a long time after the Council of Nicea 325, and both councils were well over 200 years after the the book of the New Testament was completed.
The Lord’s church knew from its onset which books were inspired and which were not. It didn’t take them over 200 years to figure it out. All one needed to do was closely examine the Apocryphal books to understand they were not written by inspiration. They are full of contradictions.
Not a single man from either council spoke by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord’s church knew from its onset which books were inspired and which were not. It didn’t take them over 200 years to figure it out. All one needed to do was closely examine the Apocryphal books to understand they were not written by inspiration.
This is demonstrably untrue. Many of the Church Fathers expressed their own opinions on the canon. Some included those books and some didn't. Many Church Fathers quoted from the deuterocanonical books in their writings. The topic of the canon was very much debated.
Do you consider the list of books that make up the Scriptures to be a teaching?
Agreed; or the authority to remove teachings.
I don’t know that I would describe the Bible that way or what exactly it is you’re getting at. I think the Scriptures do more than just teach us. They give us hope. They encourage us. They give us faith. I prefer to let the Bible describe itself. “a light to my feet and a lamp for my path, written for our instruction and encouragement. And let’s not leave out 2 Tim 3:16-17 “the Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
Since you agree that no one has the authority to add or remove teaching, how can you accept that the Catholic Church stopped sharing the wine with members? And isn’t the teaching that the bread represents both the body and blood of Jesus a new teaching, one unheard of in Scripture?
Last edited by MissKate12; 02-09-2023 at 07:50 AM..
Do you consider the list of books that make up the Scriptures to be a teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
I don’t know that I would describe the Bible that way or what you’re getting at. I think the Scriptures do more than just teach us. They give us hope. They encourage us. To give us faith. I prefer to let the Bible describe itself. “a light to my feet and a lamp for my path, written for our instruction and encouragement. And let’s not leave out 2 Tim 3:16-17 “the Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.
You misunderstand my question.
"These are the writings that make up Sacred Scripture, no more and no less". Is this a teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Agreed; or the authority to remove teachings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
Since you agree that no one has the authority to add or remove teaching, how can you accept that the Catholic Church stopped sharing the wine with members? And isn’t the teaching that the bread represents both the body and blood of Jesus a new teaching, one unheard of in Scripture?
A few things:
Firstly, the Catholic Church never stopped distributing the Eucharistic wine to the laity as I have explained to you previously.
Secondly, there is no Catholic teaching that the consecrated bread represents anything; but rather that the consecrated bread is the actual Body of Christ. Since Christ is alive and glorified, His various "parts" cannot be divided or separated. Therefore, every Eucharistic particle and every Eucharistic drop contains the Fullness of Christ; His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is Catholic metaphysics.
Thirdly, Scripture does not teach in what manner Communion must be distributed to the laity or how often.
This is demonstrably untrue. Many of the Church Fathers expressed their own opinions on the canon. Some included those books and some didn't. Many Church Fathers quoted from the deuterocanonical books in their writings. The topic of the canon was very much debated.
Can you give an example?
I don’t have a lot of time right now because I’m posting in other threads, but I will say this. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly quoted from the apocryphal books.
I don’t have a lot of time right now because I’m posting in other threads, but I will say this. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever directly quoted from the apocryphal books.
This is not a relevant point as lots of Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament.
I'm still waiting on an answer to my question; though I don't intend to rush you as there is no hurry in continuing any message board conversation
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Do you consider the list of books that make up the Scriptures to be a teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
"These are the writings that make up Sacred Scripture, no more and no less". Is this a teaching?
"These are the writings that make up Sacred Scripture, no more and no less". Is this a teaching?
Sorry Mike. I still don’t get what you’re driving at. If you’re asking me whether or not the sixty-six books of the Bible teach us, then I would say yes they do. But I suspect this is some sort of gotcha question. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Why don’t you just tell me what you’re trying to get me to say?
Quote:
A few things:
Firstly, the Catholic Church never stopped distributing the Eucharistic wine to the laity as I have explained to you previously.
Secondly, there is no Catholic teaching Scripture that the consecrated bread represents anything; but rather that the consecrated bread is the actual Body of Christ. Since Christ is alive and glorified, His various "parts" cannot be divided or separated. Therefore, every Eucharistic particle and every Eucharistic drop contains the Fullness of Christ; His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. This is Catholic metaphysics.
Thirdly, Scripture does not teach in what manner Communion must be distributed to the laity or how often.
1. That is false! The Catholic Church did indeed STOP serving wine to what they call “laity.” Surely you’ve read about the The Council of Constance of 1414-1418.In June of 1415, the Council asserted that the laity should receive the sacrament under one kind, under the form of bread alone and not wine. I didn’t make that up. Do your research! Not to mention the fact that I grew up Catholic and NEVER, not one time was I given the opportunity to take wine with the bread. You can’t rewrite history, Mike, though I must say, the Catholic Church is known for doing just that.
2. No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation, therefore, it is false doctrine. No Scripture ever shows an apostle, priest or anyone else consecrating bread and wine to be the body and blood of Jesus.
The Catholic Church has tried to justify its contradiction by coming up with this elaborate explanation of the bread being the fullness of Christ. There is no such teaching in Scripture.
All Christians, whether they were elders, deacons, evangelists, teachers or members ALL took both the bread and wine.
3. I would agree that Scripture doesn’t specify how often we should partake, but we have examples of the church assembling on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2. There is no “laity” in Scripture. Every member partook of the Supper. We see that with the church in Corinth, Chapter 11.
What about the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, who for a millennium and a half did not even know of the existence of the scripture you worship but only had the sayings of Jesus brought to them by Thomas? They believed, and their church flourished as it was until the Catholic Portuguese stumbled on them in the 15th century and gave them what-for, changing their church to conform to Rome and its Bible.
Were those people not Christian in GOD'S eyes because they didn't have what humans named "His" word?
Sorry Mike. I still don’t get what you’re driving at. If you’re asking me whether or not the sixty-six books of the Bible teach us, then I would say yes they do. But I suspect this is some sort of gotcha question. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Why don’t you just tell me what you’re trying to get me to say?
You just said there are sixty-six books that make up the Bible. Do you consider whatever list defines these 66 books as Scripture to be a teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissKate12
1. That is false! The Catholic Church did indeed STOP serving wine to what they call “laity.” Surely you’ve read about the The Council of Constance of 1414-1418.In June of 1415, the Council asserted that the laity should receive the sacrament under one kind, under the form of bread alone and not wine. I didn’t make that up. Do your research! Not to mention the fact that I grew up Catholic and NEVER, not one time was I given the opportunity to take wine with the bread. You can’t rewrite history, Mike, though I must say, the Catholic Church is known for doing just that.
As I have explained before, the Latin or Roman Rite is not the entirety of the Catholic Church. Most of the Eastern Churches have always distributed Communion to the laity under both kinds. Your hang-up on this issue is wholly unjustified.
Have you read the documents from the Council of Constance? Its treatise on Communion is very clearly stated and well-reasoned.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
