Some use Scripture alone to advocate the Baptism of infants.

Others use Scripture to advocate infants not be baptized.

Using Scripture, please tell me what Jesus said to do when such a circumstance arose.

[quote=Pax]...Using Scripture, please tell me what Jesus said to do when such a circumstance arose.[/quote]

I dunno. He had only the scrolls stored at the Temple. Whatever He memorized while on earth, I guess that's what He also consulted.
Roland

I dunno because I found both references:
-- where He quoted from what we now call Old Testament
-- where He said go to the priest and show yourself

I dunno because I cannot remember where he said to go to the Church when Holy Scriptures were being used incorrectly.

I cannot remember when He banged heads with someone using the Holy Scriptures incorrectly -- and recommended going to the Church.

Roland

Roland has trouble seeing.

Roland was a member of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. I do not know where he stands now. He is hard to pin down.

Jerome_2 wrote:
What religion is Roland anyway, is that a picture of him in his av, it looks like he's wearing a shawl and a kippah?

metal1633 replied:
Roland was a member of Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. I do not know where he stands now. He is hard to pin down.

Post-1995 WCG has morphed into a mainstream orthodox Protestant / Reformation entity. D. James Kennedy, Ravi Zacharias, RC Sproul comes to mind -- these dudes have been preaching what the now GCI/Grace Communion International presently preaches.

I'm not quite aligned with GCI. While I agree with much of the GCI ambiance, I still hold gently to some of what many would find within the Saturday / Holy Festivals Group.

There is an old thread containing my Belief Set -- either in the Apologetics [if not The Pub] or maybe in the Archives by now.
If it is in the archives, I can start another thread.

Roland
ps: I have 12-font as my default font. Metal1633's a little larger than needed. I think he was having fun.

No I was honestly trying to make sure you could see it well enough.

hey man, I hope you finally found that dream job you wanted! You certainly have the qualifications for any such similar employment!

Meanwhile, back here. If anyone has any questions about my Belief Set, which certainly doesn't include "Bible Alone"/SolO Scriptura, which really doesn't include SolA Scriptura either, we can start a new thread if the old one is no longer postable. In Catholic Defender's Community, I did manage to convince BobCatholic that Prima Scriptura is doable with cautions.
Although he is convinced that his Catholic position is correct, and well he should be convinced being a faithful Catholic, he did acknowledge that Prima Scriptura does have some value to non-Catholics if done correctly by non-Catholics.

Roland

Just a side note to the conversation: I think we are misapplying the word "Infallible" here. Read the following by Karl Keating:

The Bible Is Not Infallible
By Karl Keating

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. I wish they would stop. It is a misconstrual of the word. I know they mean well, but they are abusing a good and useful theological term.

Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.

When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).

Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. Sometimes they decide rightly, and sometimes they decide wrongly. In a few instances (such as the pope when speaking ex cathedra or the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may decide infallibly.

But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.

The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.

The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.

Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he "contains" no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.

When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.

Like other disciplines, theology has words of art. For them to convey their true meaning, we must use them accurately. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible—but not the other way around.

source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp

Sorry I'm so late responding to this and for the length of this post.

Below is a quote from NOTES on Catholic Apologetcs, Ch. III Holy Scripture and Apologetics, page 24-28 on Sola Scriptura.

It can be found On-Line at

https://sites.google.com/site/catholicnotes

II. Response to non-Catholics who claim the Bible alone is the sole rule of Faith and that
God inspires all men to understand the Truth in Holy Scripture:

1. The false idea that The Bible is the sole rule of Faith:

Non-Catholics often ask the following question: “Where is that found in the Bible”. This question is based on Luther’s doctrine of “sola Scriptura” (Scripture only), which states that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. That is, they will believe only what can be found in the Bible.

The Bible itself, which they hold in such high esteem, proves the doctrine of sola Scriptura false in two ways:

(1) Nowhere absolutely nowhere, in the Bible, is this doctrine taught.?! The Bible never says that everything we need to know can be found in the Bible. Therefore those who believe in “the Bible only”, believe something not taught in the Bible - a contradiction!

(2) In fact the Bible tells us that not all is in Scripture. It tells us that we must “keep the Ordinances given us”. It tells us we must “hold fast to Tradition”. It even tells us to
withdraw from those who discard Tradition.

History proves the doctrine of sola Scriptura is false:

(1) All the Holy Scripture was not available to the early Christians. The New Testament was not complete till St. John completed The Apocalypse (The Book of Revelation) about sixty five years after Christ left this Earth. They were taught by The Catholic Church.

(2) In fact Christians did not have a complete Bible for the first 300 years! It was not until the Fourth Century that the Holy Father called a Council of Bishops and decided which of the many writing handed down would make up the New Testament. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church, our non-Catholic friends would not have a copy of The Bible!

(3) Not only for three hundred years the world was left without a Bible, but also for one thousand four hundred years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book. Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare and costly things.

Logic proves the doctrine of sola Scriptura is false:

(1) The early writings were in Greek or Hebrew. They needed to be translated into the various languages before they were “available” to Christians who did not understand these languages. If the Bible is so critical to salvation, how can we be sure the translation is accurate?! Surely an erroneous translation cannot be a guide to Truth. There are many “versions” of the Bible that contradict one another! Which one is true? Examples of mutilation in various versions (DRV = Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Version. MV = Mutilated Version):

1 Tim. 5:17 DRV: “Let the Priests that rule well....”
MV: “Elders who do well as leaders..”

Acts 14:22 DRV: “They ordained Priests in every Church.”
MV: “They appointed elders in each congregation.”

Matt. 26:38 DRV: “Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death.....”
MV: “Then he said to them, My heart is nearly broken with sorrow.”

Matt. 16:26 DRV: “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer
the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for
his soul?”
MV: “What profit would a man show if he were to gain the whole world
and destroy himself in the process? What can a man offer in
exchange for his very self?”

Matt. 16:18 DRV: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will
build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
MV: “I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock’, and on this rock I will
build my Church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.”

Luke 12:20 DRV: “But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy Soul
of thee..”
MV: “But God said to him, You fool! This very night your life shall be
required of you...”

Luke 1:28 DRV: “And the Angel being came in, said unto her: Hail, full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women.”
MV: “Upon arriving, the angel said to her: Rejoice O highly favored
daughter! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women.”

Luke 1:46 DRV: “And Mary said: My Soul doth magnify the Lord.”
MV: “Then Mary said: My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”

John1:16 DRV: “...we all have received, and Grace for Grace.”
MV: “...we have all had a share - love following upon love.”
1 Cor. 16:23 DRV: “The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
MV: “The favor of the Lord Jesus be with you.”

(2) The Protestant “Bible” has many complete books missing! Their names are: Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Eccesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, seven chapters of the Book of Ester and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called “the Song of the Three Children”. These were deliberately cut out by Luther and Calvin and other “Reformers”! An incomplete translation cannot be a guide to Truth.“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselvesteachers, having itching ears: And will indeedturn away their hearing from the truth, but willbe turned unto fables.” 2 Tim. 4:3-4

(3) God inspired The Catholic Church to complete the writings of the Bible, select the writing to be included in the Bible, to interpret and defend the Bible through the Centuries. It stands to reason that God would also inspire The Catholic Church to make true translations of the Bible. The Bible was translated by St. Jerome into Latin, in the Fourth Century, the language of The Catholic Church and most of the educated at the time. This version was called The Vulgate and was declared to be The Official version of Holy Scripture. In 1582, The Vulgate (New Testament) was translated into English at Rheims. In 1609, The Vulgate (Old Testament) was translated into English at Douay. This Douay-Rheims Version is then the Official English translation of Holy Scripture. It is reasonable then to conclude that only the Catholic Church whom God established to give us the Bible in the first place can also give us an accurate translation of It.

Another rehash of this? Geez, people really don't want to use their heads anymore...

It's ashame - it appears n2light ran away...again.

I join the group that says: Sola Scriptura in the narrow sense doesn't work.

I do function in the group that says: Prima Scriptura, with numerous references, resources, academic and experience, consultation with clergy and learned laity, can be workable with diligence and caution.

Having never met a person who actually believes and practices Solo or Sola Scriptura, 'cause everybody I ever met always had entity[s] and person[s] helping them interpret and understand The Bible, I think I have put both Solo and Sola Scriptura to rest long ago; moved onto Prima Scriptura, as described in an article in Christianity Today some time ago. [Hope I can cough up the URL from long ago if anybody asks.]

My journey has been better by the great folks here!
It continues.

Roland

They accepted it by Tradition through faith.

When Jesus gave a new commandment, was He quoting previous Word of God?

I believe that as Christians people should look to the New Testament for guidance. I do not believe the Old Testament is really that important.

Your opinion is groundless.

Marcionism...we don't get that heresy very much around here.....although I do feel the need to point out that without the OT, the NT doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.