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

[RNRobert]

Here’s a thought:

Doesn’t an infallible Bible deserve an infallible interpreter?

The Reformation rejected the authority of the Church and said that authority came from Scripture alone. Yet the very reformers themselves could not agree on what Scripture taught, and this has continued down to this very day. Many cults twist Scripture to make it support their false teachings. But what makes their interpretation of Scripture any less valid than the interpretaion of a mainline Protestant denom? And how is a new believer, who knows little or nothing about church history and probably even less about the Biblical languages, to sort this out using the Bible alone (which itself days contains “things hard to understand”)? What is to prevent him or her from developing an entirely new “interpretation” based on their understanding?
Did Christ really intend to leave us in the lurch like that?

 

[KathleenElsie]

I’m not taking it, because I have decided to ignore the Catholic Fundamentals who seem incapable/unwilling to comprehend basic arguments.

You do remember that you are on a Catholic forum right? If not maybe you need to remember that. But then that is my opinion.

 

[BobCatholic]

The word tells us that that all scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not come with a list of 100% God approved interpretations. The Apostles did not write down all their interpretations of scripture in the Bible.

A great example of this: Luke 24 and Acts 8. Jesus interpreted the OT and passed it on to his Apostles. Phillip was able to repeat it to the Eunuch. This interpretation was not written down.

This is one reason sola scriptura cannot be practiced: There’s no way to determine which interpretation of scripture, using scripture alone, is the correct one, as scripture does not record the Apostles’ interpretation of scripture!

  So the only reason people would not want to use Sola Scripture as a standard is to practice what is not in the scriptures as provided by the Holy Spirit.

You’re confusing the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura with the doctrine of scripture’s authority.

Scripture has authority. The doctrine of sola scriptura, being a man-made invention of the 16th century, and not of apostolic origin, is not authoritative.

  Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Right, by hearing.

Hearing from someone sent by God preaching.

not from reading.

What does he teach with, the Holy Scriptures.

And the holy scriptures alone?

Then that contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where we’re supposed to hold to all the Apostles teach by written word (Scripture) and by mouth (their oral tradition)

  Peter said you are a spiritual house, he was refering to the temple that is your body in which the spirit of the son and the holy spirit reside.

Where does it say this in the Bible? This looks like an interpretation of scripture. This is known as an extra-scriptural TRADITION.

Violation of sola scriptura.

 The affects of not holding to Sola Scriptures can be seen in the jehoviah witness and the mormans. Who have used the scriptures to promote none logical claims, jesus is michael and angle, You will get to go to the stars and become mother and poppa gods ect. They even denounce the cross. These are called cults by most churchs because they do not hold scripture as a authority over the claims of men.

Actually they do hold scripture as their highest authority.

The problem is that they confuse their interpretation of scripture with the scripture, so thus their man-made doctrines are confused with scripture.

The worst part: There’s no way to show that their doctrines were held by the Apostles, since the Apostles’ interpretation was not written down.

 God has told us the reasons we hold to Sola Scripture

How does God tell you to hold to a doctrine that 1) cannot be practiced and 2) only came around in the 16th century? You sound like a Mormon and their “new revelations” and the JW’s with their “new light”

You have your responsibility in your faith to make sure it lines up wih the word of God.

And who makes this authoritative judgment? This sounds like a magisterium.

Violation of sola scriptura.

People can’t be saved by a church.

Where does it say this in the Bible? Sounds like a tradition.

Violation of sola scriptura.

 Getting the word out is preaching the gosple.

Yeah, the original gospel (Galatians 1:9), not a man-made gospel - which includes the Apostles’ interpretation of scripture.

So, back to what I posted. I noticed you didn’t address one iota of the reasons I posted why sola scriptura cannot be practiced, just posted your little sermon, filled with man-made traditions you’re trying to get us to accept on blind faith (with no scriptural support)

So, prove that sola scriptura can be practiced. First, start by answering my objections.

 

[BobCatholic]

Here’s a thought:

Doesn’t an infallible Bible deserve an infallible interpreter?

The Reformation rejected the authority of the Church and said that authority came from Scripture alone. Yet the very reformers themselves could not agree on what Scripture taught, and this has continued down to this very day. Many cults twist Scripture to make it support their false teachings. But what makes their interpretation of Scripture any less valid than the interpretaion of a mainline Protestant denom? And how is a new believer, who knows little or nothing about church history and probably even less about the Biblical languages, to sort this out using the Bible alone (which itself days contains “things hard to understand”)? What is to prevent him or her from developing an entirely new “interpretation” based on their understanding?
Did Christ really intend to leave us in the lurch like that?

The only way to infallibly interpret the Bible is to hold to the interpretation of the Twelve Apostles. They infallibly interpreted the Bible, and passed it on to their true successors.

Those successors, the bishops (read 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) held on to this interpretation throughout the centuries, and was able to keep the Gospel intact.

No sect, whether Baptist, presbyterian, JW, mormon, etc. has the true successors of the Apostles, and thus they don’t have the Apostolic interpretation of scripture, and thus they don’t have the Gospel.

 

[BobCatholic]

I’m not taking it, because I have decided to ignore the Catholic Fundamentals who seem incapable/unwilling to comprehend basic arguments.

CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALS incapable/unwilling to comprehend basic arguments?

Sir, I’ve seen sola scripurists with the same exact problem.

I’ve yet to see any one sola scripturist answer my infamous 4 questions. Not one.

I’ve yet to see any sola scripturist prove that sola scriptura can be practiced, by answering my objections to that man-made doctrine.

 

[Reformed1]

You know, I sometimes wonder if this is not the exact opposite way of going about things.

By Looking at a leaf and asking for proof that the branches, trunk and roots exist?

Doesn’t it make way more sense to determine if the Church is infallible first? After that, all other debate is moot.

How would you go about proving your church is infallible?

You are of course right, if you could prove that the Catholic church is infallible the debate is moot. But, how does one prove that?

 

[BobCatholic]

How would you go about proving your church is infallible?

You are of course right, if you could prove that the Catholic church is infallible the debate is moot. But, how does one prove that?

Let’s take a look at certain key parts. I see that the Church has “nailed it right on the money” on too many things for it to be a coincidence:

1. Nailed the doctrine of the Trinity (Council of Nicaea & Constantinople)
2. Nailed the Canon of Scripture (Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage) - no protestant sect can claim these councils, they are ours!
3. Nailed the divinity of Christ (Council of Nicaea)
4. Nailed that salvation is not by works alone (Council of Trent)
5. Nailed that the use of Artificial Contraception would lead to the dehumanization and sexual objectification of women (Humanae Vitae, 1969)

I could go on and on and on and on…but only the Catholic Church has stood firm while sola scripturists went relativistic.

 

[RNRobert]

1. Nailed that the use of Artificial Contraception would lead to the dehumanization and sexual objectification of women (Humanae Vitae, 1969)

One of the things G.K. Chesterton liked about the Catholic Church was that “it made a statement first and was proven right later.” Humanae Vitae was a prime example of this.

 

[BobCatholic]

One of the things G.K. Chesterton liked about the Catholic Church was that “it made a statement first and was proven right later.” Humanae Vitae was a prime example of this.

Agreed.

Up to 1930, ALL OF CHRISTENDOM (protestant, orthodox, & Catholic) condemned the use of artificial contraception (AC) as sinful. They all cited the Bible for this.

Then in 1930, at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church said AC was OK for married couples under certain strict rules. Quickly afterwards, sect after sect legitimized AC.

Today, only the Catholic Church (and maybe a couple of small sects) stand alone.

Did God’s word change?

Of course not.

But I know that sola scripturists (the vast majority) have dropped the ball on this issue. Even the Eastern Orthodox have done so too.

I saw this great sola scripturist site which condemned the use of AC and had a bunch of Bible verses (not all of them, they missed Paul’s admonition to not do sorcery which also counts in this area) - however, this was for a small sect, and it hardly represented sola scripturists as a whole.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How would you go about proving your church is infallible?

You are of course right, if you could prove that the Catholic church is infallible the debate is moot. But, how does one prove that?

Okay…this is long, but I have been working on this very subject tonight. The following is from my own word processor - not “cut and pasted” from a website. In fact, I haven’t even proofed it yet, so bear with me if there are some typos, etc.

The authority of the church is Apostolic Authority

The Church’s authority is unique in that it is derived from the authority of the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Authority flows from the Authority of Jesus and the Father.

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

Here we see that “all authority” comes from God. This authority was given by God the Father to Jesus who, in turn, gave it to His disciples. He gave them “all authority” to “make disciples of all nations”. We also see another example of the authority given to the Apostles in the Gospel of John:

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’ " (John 20:21-23)

From this passage, we see again that Jesus said, “as the Father has sent me (with all authority in heaven and on earth), so “I am sending you” with all of that exact same authority. Note further that Jesus has given the Apostles the authority to forgive men’s sins. Yet, as the Jews asked on another occasion:

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 5:5)

But Jesus knew their thoughts and asked:

“Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:4-8)

Notice that the Jews did not praise God who had “given such authority to a man” – a single man named Jesus. Instead, they praised God because the authority to forgive sins has now been passed into the hands of mankind. Moreover, with this kind of authority firmly conveyed to them, the Apostles spoke with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. This was confirmed when Jesus said,

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

From this, we can see plainly that the Apostles in the early church spoke with the authority of Christ and God the Father and that the early church could rely on the authority of the apostles because when they spoke, the church heard Jesus speaking. Listening to the Apostles was the same as listening to Jesus; rejection of the Apostles was rejection of both Jesus and the Father. Jesus cannot possibly identify Himself more closely with the Apostles than He did in this verse

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ " (Matthew 28:18-19)

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ ” (John 20:21)

From this, we can see that God the Father has given all authority to God the Son who in turn bestows this authority upon His own disciples and sends them out to preach the truth to all the world. Thus, we can see that the Apostolic Authority of the Church is God-given.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But how closely should the Church be identified with Christ? Jesus Himself specified how we should receive those sent by Christ:

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

Echoing the words of Jesus, the Apostle John wrote:

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” 1 John 4:6

John says that we can tell who is and is not of God by determining who does and does not listen to “us” – in other words, John, specifically. John wrote “us” to emphasize his unity with the other Apostles and those who were in agreement with them. Peter also spoke of these reliable witnesses who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit when he wrote:

“It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” (1 Peter 1:12)

From this, we can see that there was a group of men, called “Apostles”, who could be listened to with confidence. We’ll look at this group of men more closely in a moment, but first, let’s consider the issue of whether we can trust what the church tells us about the truth we need for salvation.

In order to lead people into all truth free from error, Jesus established a church that is infallible

Reflecting on what we read just a moment ago in Luke 10:16, we realize that if we are actually hearing Jesus when we hear His Apostles, then we can be sure that the Church is speaking the truth because Jesus cannot speak anything other than the truth.

However, we need to know for sure that the Church which speaks for Christ is actually “getting the message right” and that they have not somehow distorted the words of Jesus like children playing a game of “Telephone”. Fortunately, there are scriptures that give us confidence that the Church founded by Christ is prevented from teaching anything that conflicts with the truth. Taking a second look at the verses quoted from Matthew 28 above:

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ ” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Focusing on the last phrase, we can see that Jesus has promised that He will remain with the Church “always, to the end of the age.” With Jesus remaining with her always, how can the Church go wrong when teaching the truth about Christ Himself? But there’s more:

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Jesus promises that the Spirit will teach them all things, to remind them of everything Jesus had said to them, and to guide them into all truth. It is this sure guidance of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The Apostles were able to teach without error, or infallibly, because the Spirit of God guided them. This is how we can be sure that apostolic authority is the sure guide to finding the truth we need for salvation - the Apostolic church is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. Does this “apostolicity” still exist today?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus established His church forever by means of Apostolic Succession

We saw earlier that Jesus established an authoritative church and that the authority was Apostolic in nature. Further, we saw that the church was infallible because of the promises Jesus made about sending the Holy Spirit to remain with the church forever. To answer the question of whether an apostolic church still exists, we need to look at the passage from Matthew we just read, and as we do, we will begin to see just how closely the concepts of authority, infallibility and apostolic succession are tied together.

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “ (Matthew 28:18-19)

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

“But,” some people might argue, “the promise of the Holy Spirit was given while Jesus was still on earth. What assurance do we have that the Church would have this same authority after Jesus had ascended into heaven?”

In John, we find the answer to this question:

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:25-26)

“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

Yes, Jesus was speaking while still with the Apostles; however, he also promises that the Holy Spirit would be sent to them after He ascends to the Father. “But wait,” some will say, “this only applies to the original Apostles while they were still alive.” After the death of the last Apostle, the Spirit would no longer be with the church. That is why we have the Bible.” Let’s examine further what Jesus said:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever. As we saw earlier, he also said,

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? It is through the office of Apostle, and not through the individual Apostles themselves, that Jesus established and maintains His authority in the Church. Let us consider the Word of God:

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28)

From this, we can see that God established the position of Apostle in the Church along with that of prophet and teacher among others. We saw earlier that Jesus did not command his disciples to “go, therefore, write books, and let everyone decide for themselves what is true”. No! The mission of the Apostles, the mission of the Church, was to teach, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, etc. Making disciples of all nations would take time. Therefore, God established the office of Apostle in the church, but He never says anything about this being for the first couple of centuries only. He never says “until you can get the New Testament written and canonized.” The Church is still with us, so there must still be Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ, and these current apostles must still have the same authority that was entrusted to the original Twelve and passed down as was noted earlier. This is called, “Apostolic Succession.”

Also, we saw earlier that Jesus promised to be with the Apostles until the end of the age. How could he do that if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

Eventually, of course, Peter, James and John all died. What provisions were made for replacing these Apostles after their deaths? Let’s consider what the Bible tells us about Apostolic Succession:

“During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:15-26)

In this passage, we see that the original eleven Apostles acted to fill the vacant position or office that was held previously by Judas. Thus, when the office-holder died, he was replaced. This process of replacement explains one aspect of Apostolic Succession. Already within the early Church, we can see that there were 13 Apostles – not just the original Twelve.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“But wait,” some will object. “There were still only 12 offices; Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot. He did not add another office. I don’t see where the church should have more than 12 Apostles based on this passage.” For the answer to this question, we must look to another passage from the Book of Acts:

“The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.” (Acts 14:13-15)

From this passage, we can see that the number of Apostles had expanded beyond the original Twelve; there were now 15 men who had held the office of Apostle. From these men, the authority of Jesus given to the original Twelve was passed on to other men who passed on that authority to still other men who followed them. The Apostles were the first Bishops; they appointed or ordained others, as well. As the Church grew, so too did the number of Bishops who served the needs of the Church. The leadership of the church can be seen to expand in several passages:

“This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.” (1 Timothy 3:1)

The Bishops also appointed presbyters (or priests) and deacons as helpers in the service of the Church.

In several passages in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, we can see that Paul acted as a “spiritual father” passing on his Apostolic Authority to his “sons” as an “inheritance”. There are numerous examples of this language in these letters, but one should suffice:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, my true child in faith” (1 Timothy 1:1-2)

Other examples can be found in 2 Timothy 1:2 and 2:1, 1 Timothy 1:18 and Titus 1:4. Similarly, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul highlighted the authority with which they should receive Timothy when he wrote:

“For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:17

Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” 2 Tim 2:2

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless” (Titus 1:5-7)

Paul, tells Titus to appoint Bishops in every town; the consecration of Bishops is something that only another bishop can do, so here we see another example of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession at work: Paul has ordained Titus and given him the authority to ordain others. The expanding church needed an expanding leadership.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In keeping with the mission of the Church which is to teach, Paul told Timothy:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3)

“Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:11-13)

Preaching, teaching, commanding others, appointing Bishops: these are the things that Paul has given Timothy and Titus the authority to do. But how was this Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” (2 Tim 1:6)

“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.” (1 Timothy 4:14)

Paul also cautions Timothy:

“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Timothy 5:22)

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men.

Do these passages give us any impression that the early Church taught that anyone and everyone could pick up a Bible, interpret it for themselves, and then begin to exercise true, Apostolic Authority in the course of fulfilling the teaching mission of the Church of God infallibly? No! The Apostles, who were chosen and sent by Jesus and led by the promised Holy Spirit, have passed on not only the teaching that they received from Jesus, but also their God-given authority through the formal “laying on of hands” upon other men from one generation to the next from their day all the way down to our own time. This is Apostolic Succession. This is how we can be sure that the Church today teaches infallibly from the word of God concerning the truths that we must know to be saved.

 

[BobCatholic]

Do these passages give us any impression that the early Church taught that anyone and everyone could pick up a Bible, interpret it for themselves, and then begin to exercise true, Apostolic Authority in the course of fulfilling the teaching mission of the Church of God infallibly? No!

1 cor 12:30: “do all interpret?”

Obviously, from the context: NO

 

[RNRobert]

Sola Scripturists believe that the Catholic Church “went off the rails” so to speak, and departed from the truth, so I started this thread and gave a challenge: If the Catholic Church is wrong, then which of the Protestant Churches (I excluded the Orthodox since they are similar to the CC and have apostolic authority, but are not accepted by Protestants) teaches the Bible 100% correctly. So far, no one has attempted to answer the question…

 

[Randy_Carson]

1 cor 12:30: “do all interpret?”

Obviously, from the context: NO

Actually, in this context, Paul is speaking of the gift of interpretation of tongues - not the gift of interpretation of scripture.

 

[jacobaer]

One of the big tipoffs that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine is that you can’t get one straight definition from everybody who holds to it.

For instance, am I allowed to believe or practice something that is not found in Scripture but is not contradicted by it>?

Or am I bound to believe and practice ONLY what is found in Scripture?

Believers in the first will tell you that the second is wrong, and believers in the second will tell you that the first is wrong.

This goes right back to the heart of the Reformation. The Big Three couldn’t all agree on this essential element of SS.

AND then Luther wrote his catechism, and Calvin wrote his Institutes and Zwingli formed his own doctrine and forced their followers to believe their way…OR ELSE!

Look at the fruit!

Two cents from the original poster,
Jacobaer

 

[mikeledes]

I thought about the divisions in the Catholic Church and the divisions in Protestantism and I still see major differences. If you compare the statement of faith of Catholics in communion with Rome and Catholics that are not, their differences are not as big as between a Wesleyan and a Calvinist Baptist. These Catholic splinter groups believe in the seven sacraments, most accept the papacy (though they don’t regard the last couple of popes as being valid), they share the same teachings on grace, Scripture and Tradition, justification, etc. Moreover, they are few in number compared to the number of Protestant sects, which may not be 33, 000 but there are still too many in existence.

Moreover, most of these Catholic splinter groups, if not all, have appeared in the last 150 years. Protestantism, on the other hand, began to splinter within its first two decades of existence. Even with Luther’s circle, you had conflict (Melancthon, Karstadt). You also had the appearance of the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists. Add to this a number of radical sects all inspired by Luther’s rejection of Catholic Church. This splintering has continued up to now. Why all this confusion? Why is it that two people sincerely searching for the truth and claiming to possess the Holy Spirit come up with different conclusions?

Also explain to me, how did the Catholic Church get it so “wrong”? Not only the Catholic Church, but the Orthodox Church as well? If God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”, why did he allow it to fall into mass doctrinal error for over a millenia? If God gave teachers so that we would not be swayed by every wind of doctrine, why did the entire Church fall into error? Now I can undertand one local church falling into error or several local churches, but all of the major apostolic churches fell into error at the same time (Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.)? Please explain this to me.

God Bless,
Michael