A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[joshua_b]

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
2. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

…and we digress. I want to pull this out because I believe that THIS right here is at the very heart of this disagreement. Protestants seem to be in consensus with number 4 and this is what I want to take issue with. Catholics believe that God’s “final and full revelation” lies in the unadultered teachings of Christ, which were LATER written down into what would eventually be called “Scripture”. If one is to claim that Scripture is God’s final and full revelation, then I would expect that it be shown in Scripture where that is said.

And I think that the word “tradition” is thrown around too cavalierly in these debates. If you are referring to (small “t”) tradition, such as fasting and abstinence from meat on Fridays during Lent, the celibacy of priests in some (NOT ALL) rites of Catholocism, etc., then yes, these “traditions” (called also disciplines) are subject to the higher authority of the Word of God. Sacred Tradition, however, IS the full revelation of the Word of God, since it (once again) is the fullness of truth that Jesus gave to the Apostles to hand down to their successors. Perhaps some of the debate stems from Protestants either not being willing or not being capable to wrap their minds around the concept of God preserving His Word infallabily outside of Scripture…

thoughts…???

 

[Reformed1]

Which Scriptures? In Timothy’s time the Old Testament was the only Scriptures available (the NT didn’t exist)

Paul was not discussing the extent of scriptures but the nature of scripture. Nowhere in the above verse or the verses surrounding the above text will you find Paul discussing what the boundaries of scripture are.

Already, at this early date in church history, the church was beginning to from the canon. Peter realizes Paul’s letters are scriptural and Paul recognizes Luke as being scriptural.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

My original intention is starting this thread was to point out the error in SolaScriptura’s argument.

The error is this: the Sola Scripturist must go outside the bounds of Scripture in order to make any kind of case that Scripture Alone is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice. It’s odd, isn’t it? They can’t make the case for Scripture Alone by sticking to Scripture alone.
That is all.

I am starting a new thread titled The Hypostatic Union and Sola Scriptura in which I will ask those on the Forum who hold to SS to please make the case for the Union using Scripture alone.

Thanks to all who contributed here,
Jacobaer

But we have used Scripture. You just didn’t like it.

As for your other thread, I may join it later. I’m sure we can prove it. I’m sure we can find more in Scripture to support that then some of the doctrines that you believe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I keep telling myself not to get into this debate, so I won’t but since you (mike asked) I’ll do my best to answer. These are Dr. James Whites words( the ones I posted above the what is and what is not SS
Lets look…
2 Timothy 3:14-17

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;** (meaning God)**

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which** are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus**.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Mike from my standpoint its pretty clear, though I realize it doesnt jive with the Catholic interpretation of James 2:24 and RCC doctrine… Its pretty straight forward to us.

Amen! Catholics love every word of that. Of course, it doesn’t actually say that “ONLY” scripture nor does it say “SUFFICIENT”.

Bike shop…army…shall we dance or do you want to sit this one out?

 

[SolaScriptura]

WHAT SOLA SCRIPTURA IS NOT

1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

myfavoritmartin,

Thanks a bunch! These are very good and the same thing I have been shouting from the rooftops on this board for days. Maybe before any Catholic attempts to offer a refutation of Sola Scriptura( the poster and the doctrine) they should be required to recite these 6 things. It would certainly save me a lot of banging my head against the wall.

OK, Catholics repeat after me:
*
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
2. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

*

Now continue this up to 100 times for each point, and lets try to dialogue again, next week.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical, Traditional, Apostolic, or from the Early Church Fathers.

Question: Would you still be a Christian if there was no Bible?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

By the way, the Catholic Church is Biblical, Traditional, Apostolic, and from the Early Church Fathers.

And, the Catholic Church existed long before the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

By the way, the Catholic Church is Biblical, Traditional, Apostolic, and from the Early Church Fathers.

And, the Catholic Church existed long before the Bible.

I just want to clear this up for a bit because some Non-Catholic may misinterprets your belief.

Catholic Church was founded in 29-33 A.D by Jesus Christ. The Gospel was orally preached. The Scripture used was Old Testament Text.

Development of the Old Testament Canon
1000-50 BC:
The Old Testament (hereafter “OT”) books are written.
C. 200 BC:
Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the “Septuagint” (abbreviation: “LXX”). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
AD 30-100:
Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
C. AD 100:
So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.
C. AD 400:
Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the “Vulgate”). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or “Ecclesiasticus”], and Baruch–he calls “apocrypha,” that is, “hidden books.” But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.
AD 1536:
Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the “Apocrypha.”
AD 1546:
The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.​

Development of the New Testament Canon
C. AD 51-125:
The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced–for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140:
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke’s gospel (he deletes references to Jesus’ Jewishness). Marcion’s “New Testament”–the first to be compiled–forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.
C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
AD 367:
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine’s Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
AD 904:
Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
AD 1442:
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536:
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
AD 1546:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

You can also view this link: davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm

Yes, the Catholic Church did made a list of the Canon of Scripture.

 

[RNRobert]

*Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

But that begs the question: Which Church? The church that teaches baptism provides real grace, or the church that says it’s just a symbol? The Church that believes Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper, or the one that says it’s just a memorial supper? Or perhaps its the church that says we need neither of them? Or what about the church that says Saturday, not Sunday, is the true day of worship?
All these churches claim authority to teach from Scripture, yet they cannot agree on what Scripture says. Which church is right and which is wrong? Who is the ultimate arbiter.

If Sola Scripturists were consistent in their teachings, then it would be a compelling case for that doctrine. But since they can’t, I have no choice but to reject it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

But that begs the question: Which Church?

No, it is not begging the question. It is pointing out the strawman. The charge one constantly hears is that sola Scriptura teaches there is no authority besides the Scripture
To point out that is false because even Scripture itself speaks of parents, government, and elders being authorities is not begging the question. We can have the debate about which Church, if you guys will leave alone the strawmen arguments.

The church that teaches baptism provides real grace, or the church that says it’s just a symbol? The Church that believes Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper, or the one that says it’s just a memorial supper? Or perhaps its the church that says we need neither of them? Or what about the church that says Saturday, not Sunday, is the true day of worship?
All these churches claim authority to teach from Scripture, yet they cannot agree on what Scripture says. Which church is right and which is wrong? Who is the ultimate arbiter.

What typically happens is that I will start to respond to some of these charges. In the process of making an argument you guys( all except for a few) will fall back on your caricatures or strawmen arguments. For example, I would answer a critique and the first thing I hear is something like this: “You can’t use logic, because that is another authority outside of Scripture which shows sola Scriptura is unworkable, untenable, not found before the Reformation, ….”

If Sola Scripturists were consistent in their teachings, then it would be a compelling case for that doctrine. But since they can’t, I have no choice but to reject it.

If you have been reading this thread you should know already that I have responded to this very weak form of an argument already. For example, if Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching magisterium of Rome were correct, then we wouldn’t have had all those splits throughout church history on things such as Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

 

[mikeledes]

myfavoritmartin,

Thanks a bunch! These are very good and the same thing I have been shouting from the rooftops on this board for days. Maybe before any Catholic attempts to offer a refutation of Sola Scriptura( the poster and the doctrine) they should be required to recite these 6 things. It would certainly save me a lot of banging my head against the wall.

OK, Catholics repeat after me:
*
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

1. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
2. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.

*

Now continue this up to 100 times for each point, and lets try to dialogue again, next week.

The issue with Sola Scriptura is not that it allegedly denies the teaching authority of the Church per se, but that it rejects this teaching authority as an infallible court of appeals when disputes and/or questions on Divine Revelation arise.

The Bible was given to a Church that already possessed the correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God. Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the God-given teaching authority of the Church. Scripture can provide the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. But that depends on it being interpreted correctly. And this can only be done by keeping the Bible within its God -given context (Tradition and Magisterium). The Protestant Reformation ripped it out of its context and has led to massive doctrinal confusion expressed in hundreds of denominations and sects.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

The issue with Sola Scriptura is not that it allegedly denies the teaching authority of the Church per se, but that it rejects this teaching authority as an infallible court of appeals when disputes and/or questions on Divine Revelation arise.

Exactly, that is where the debate it to take place. So if we can get by the strawmen then we can debate on the infallibility of your rule of faith(i.e. Scripture, Tradition, and teaching magisteruim) vs my rule of faith.

The Bible was given to a Church that already possessed the correct understanding/interpretation of the Word of God.

Yeah, just like the Jews right who were also given the Scripture with a correct understaning/interpretation of the Word of God? And this is also why there were so many debates in the early church and they continued on until the East and West even split. However, even after the split there are still wide ranges of disagreements amongst Catholics about what Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium actually means on numerous issues.

Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the God-given teaching authority of the Church.

What is this Apostolic Tradition? Can you identify it for me from the 2nd or 3rd century just to make sure it is consistent with today’s Apostolic Tradition?

Scripture can provide the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. But that depends on it being interpreted correctly.

Yes it does. But that also means all 3 of your infallible standards have to be interpreted correctly.

And this can only be done by keeping the Bible within its God -given context (Tradition and Magisterium).

Well, that is an assertion without an argument. On what basis do you believe it can only be done in the context of the nebulous Tradition and Magisterium( which you really mean Rome and the Bishops in communion with her).

The Protestant Reformation ripped it out of its context and has led to massive doctrinal confusion expressed in hundreds of denominations and sects.

Once again this is assertion without much argument. Wanna try again and make a real argument?

 

[mikeledes]

Yeah, just like the Jews right who were also given the Scripture with a correct understaning/interpretation of the Word of God? And this is also why there were so many debates in the early church and they continued on until the East and West even split. However, even after the split there are still wide ranges of disagreements amongst Catholics about what Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium actually means on numerous issues.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not in poll numbers. Disgreements on what Scripture and Tradition means are settled authoritaively by the Magisterium. If there are Catholics that disagree with settled doctrine is besides the point. The debates in the early church that you make reference to generally arose when there were challenges to Orthodox Christian teaching. These challenges from heretics forced the Church to clearly define teachings that it may have previously taken for granted. The Council of Nicaea is an excellent example of the Magisterium at work and Protestants enjoy its benefits today.

What is this Apostolic Tradition? Can you identify it for me from the 2nd or 3rd century just to make sure it is consistent with today’s Apostolic Tradition?

Read the tracts on the Church Fathers and Catholic doctrine in this website.

Yes it does. But that also means all 3 of your infallible standards have to be interpreted correctly

.

Like I said, the teachings of the Church are found in the Catechism. Any disputes are resolved by the Magisterium.

Well, that is an assertion without an argument. On what basis do you believe it can only be done in the context of the nebulous Tradition and Magisterium( which you really mean Rome and the Bishops in communion with her).

On the basis of this:

Acts 15:1-2

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

The issue in question was a foundational doctrine of Christianity, salvation. Paul had been preaching the Gospel for many years, was thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament, had seen Jesus in visions, and had deep spiritual experiences. He could have simply said that these Judiazers were just plain wrong and just follow what I am telling you. Instead, they chose to settle this dispute in the final court of appeals, the Magisterium. This Magisterium made a decision that was authoritative, final, and binding on all believers:

Acts 16:4

**As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. **

I also make my argument on the basis of this:

1 Timothy 3:15

15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. By the way, you inadvertantly accept an infallible decision of this Magisterium everytime you read the New Testament and use it to defend and teach your beliefs. It was this teaching authority that infallibly discerned which books were inspired and which were not. It was this teaching authority that served as the final infallible court of appeals in settling any dispute on the Canon of Scripture. If this teaching authority is fallible, then how are you so certain that all of the books in the New Testament canon truly belong there. Paul wrote many letters of exhortation, but they all did not make into Canon. A letter may contain true doctrine, be edifying, be well written and inspiring, and even be written by an Apostle, but that does not automatically make it inspired.

Once again this is assertion without much argument. Wanna try again and make a real argument?

You can be so nice sometimes and then on other days … I don’t know. The confusion in Protestantism is evidence of what I said. Granted, it is not conclusive. But it is a very bad sign. God is not the author of confusion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atreyu]

If you have been reading this thread you should know already that I have responded to this very weak form of an argument already. For example, if Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching magisterium of Rome were correct, then we wouldn’t have had all those splits throughout church history on things such as Papal Infallibility, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Immaculate Conception, the Canon, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

I’m trying to stay out of this now but just quickly, I would have thought splits such as have occurred would be exactly what we would expect even if the teaching magisterium of Rome is correct. Man is fallen, after all…

The difference as I see it, is in Catholic ecclesiology, there is an objective standard that everyone can point to, if they wish. Problems arise when people don’t point to that objective standard. Is that the fault of the magisterium…?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The difference as I see it, is in Catholic ecclesiology, there is an objective standard that everyone can point to, if they wish.

I believe you are correct. The problem is that it differs from Protestant ecclesiology which says that the Church are the called out ones…a vast group of sinners called out to become the Church of Christ. And the objective standard we point to is Scripture. I fear the Scripture vs. Church Tradition battle will not be decided this side of heaven. And it’s fine by me. I’m standing on the side I’m on.

 

[joshua_b]

I feel compelled to jump in here, basically to echo the sentiments of the previous poster, and add a little something. To say that there is dissention among Catholics is the biggest “strawman argument” I’ve seen in this whole thread (and this from the people screaming “strawman” every other post). There may be dissention and disagreement among Catholics over what the Church SHOULD be teaching on whatever subject, but there is no division over what the Church is ACTUALLY teaching. When we speak of “Catholic Unity”, this is what we are talking about.

If I pick any denomination (with maybe a few exceptions) and ask 100 different pastors within that denom what the Word of God says about any given doctrine, I am likely to get several different responses…expand this to all the various Protestant denominations, and the multitude of responses to the question “what does God’s Word say about “x,y,z” …” will give every possible variation of doctrine imaginable.

To contrast, you can walk into any Catholic Church in the world (and this is not limited to ROMAN Catholic Churches, this includes ALL of the Eastern rite Catholic churches as well), and if you ask what the Catholic Church teaches about doctrine x,y,or z, you will get the exact same answer in EVERY place. If you should happen to get an answer that is not the same, then the Church has a way to deal with that too (including excommunication, but that is a different topic entirely). The Church has maintained this structural unity for the entire history of its existence, and I challenge any protestant denomination to match the Catholic Church in regards to structural unity and consistency in doctrinal teaching.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled debate…

I will ask again …Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is “God’s final and full revelation” ? It seems to me that if Scripture is God’s final and full revelation, then it would tell us as much, but I have yet to find anything in my Bible to this effect.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I feel compelled to jump in here, basically to echo the sentiments of the previous poster, and add a little something. To say that there is dissention among Catholics is the biggest “strawman argument” I’ve seen in this whole thread (and this from the people screaming “strawman” every other post). There may be dissention and disagreement among Catholics over what the Church SHOULD be teaching on whatever subject, but there is no division over what the Church is ACTUALLY teaching. When we speak of “Catholic Unity”, this is what we are talking about.

Semantics. When the dissention is among Catholics it’s ok but when it’s among Protestants it’s not. Ok. You will have to be more convincing.

If I pick any denomination (with maybe a few exceptions) and ask 100 different pastors within that denom what the Word of God says about any given doctrine, I am likely to get several different responses…expand this to all the various Protestant denominations, and the multitude of responses to the question “what does God’s Word say about “x,y,z” …” will give every possible variation of doctrine imaginable.

Scripture says we see through a glass darkly. Please be accurate. Most Protestants agree on the main important things. They form their own denominations (most of them anyways) based on personalities, worship styles, and other such secondary issues. At least we stick to the Bible; Catholics have an out with everything. They can just say it’s Tradition even when it contradicts Scripture.

** I disagree. Catholics all over the place disagree about many things. They even say that they aren’t required to believe that Mary never died, etc. I don’t believe the Church has any way to deal with contrary beliefs. If they did they would not sit on the fence over the Fatima issue, nor over the issue of whether Mary ever died or not.

I think there are plenty of Protestant denominations with as much if not more structural unity than the RCC. As for consistency in doctrinal teachings, I already commented on that. I’ve been saying the same thing for two weeks though and I’m beginning to believe that some of you don’t listen.**

Now, back to the regularly scheduled debate…

I will ask again …Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is “God’s final and full revelation” ? It seems to me that if Scripture is God’s final and full revelation, then it would tell us as much, but I have yet to find anything in my Bible to this effect.

**I think us Protestants are basically…tired of answering this question when it is apparent you don’t want to listen. Read your Bible…it will come to you. **

 

[jacobaer]

Hey Sola,

You said: “…sola Scriptura does not mean Scripture is the sole authority for Christian faith and practice”

ME: And for the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th time, “Says who?” You? Did God make YOU the authority to which we all go to get the definition of Sola Scriptura? Since you have admitted that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is DERIVED from Scripture, you have to admit that there can be multiple derivations of SS. So who in the Protestant tradition decides which derivative of SS is correct?

Which of these is correct?

We can ONLY believe and practice what we find in Scripture? If you have any knowledge of the Christianity in America, you must know that there are groups that hold to this strict interpretation and would tell you that YOU are wrong.

Or can we believe and practice something not found in Scripture as long as it is not contradicted in Scripture, such as asking for the intercession of the saints in heaven?

Does God speak to us as individual believers ONLY through Scripture? Or does God also speak to our spirits through the still small voice of the Holy Spirit? There are groups out there that believe that God ONLY speaks through the Bible.

Some Pentecostal denominations believe that prophetic utterances are the Word of God and are authoritative for the church. Are they right? They believe in Sola Scriptura, too.

You make it seem so clear and simple, this Sola Scriptura doctrine, but it is a minefield of problems.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[mikeledes]

I just want to share a couple of verses to emphasize the point in my previous posts:

Jeremiah 3:15

Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you on knowledge and understanding.

Jeremiah 23:4

I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing.

These words were fulfilled in the establishment of the Magisterium:

Ephesians 4:11-14

**11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

12 For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; **

God established the teaching authority in order to ensure that His people would not be “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by trickery men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” If this was the point of the teaching authority, then logically God would have to make provision that this teaching authority will also not be “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by trickery men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” In other words, that it would always faithfully and correctly interpret and teach Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition). Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of establishing it and the church could not be “the pillar and foundation of truth.” Hence the need for infalliblity.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Servant1]

And you know about the authority of the church from … the Bible? Matt 16:18? somewhat circular nes pas?

Why appeal to an authority you deem insufficiant.

In actuality the Bible gives to the Church an degree of authority it never “claims for itself.” See 1 Tim 3:15: “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

And - the oft quoted verse from elswhere in Pauls writing to Timothy - 2 Tim 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” is often turned around in its meaning by Sola Scripturists.

Note carefully the language, even in English…

It says ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God… That speaks about the inspiration of scripture… it DOES NOT say - and this is crucial - it DOES NOT say that scripture is ALL that is inspired by God! There is a vital difference and there is no way the English or the Greek can be reconstructed to mean that.

So in looking at what scripture itself says about its authoritativeness, we have to heed ALL that it says - not just here or there. But even if we limit ourselves to the Pastoral Letters to Timothy, we see it more clearly.

In one part of the letters, Paul does verify that scripture is inspired by god, and is profitable for use. Paul even says ALL scripture. But WHAT was Paul talking about? His letters? The New Testament? Of course not! Neither existed as scripture (in the sense we use the word today) OR as a colletion in a book when Paul wrote. What PAUL knew as scripture was the Septuagint. But that’s another point…

Yes, Paul told Timothy that God inspired the scripture. But he ALSO told Timothy that the CHURCH was the pillar and grond of truth. Paul clearly places significant authority in the CHURCH.

One simply cannot use what Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 to means that scripture is all that there is that is God-inspired. And 1 Tim 3:15 certainly says the Church is, else how could it be the pillar and ground of truth?