Authority of the church vs Sola scriptura

[joangel]

I am currently struggling with believing sola scriptura vs the authority of the church.

It is said that Jesus gave the authority to Peter to build the church which is the catholic church we see today. And he also said that we must keep the traditions passed down to us and that scriptures were also fundamental to faith. But how am I to trust the church’s interpretation of the bible if there are many pastors who sin within the church? And there have been so many cases of pastors in the church who teach wrong teachings. Am I to blindly accept these teachings? Even I personally have attended a catholic church where the pastor there taught wrong teachings. But the bible tells us to rely on tradition and trust the church. How am I to trust the church when it teaches wrong teachings?

In view of this respect, sola scriptura makes much more sense because the word of God cannot be untrue. Humans might mistakes when they teach and might teach people the wrong things, but God’s word will always be right.

I would really appreciate if anyone would clear up this confusion. This is my major issue with the Catholic church.

 

[po18guy]

You get a copy of the catechism and read up. If you hear something odd, compare it with the catechism. This is something you cannot do in any bible-based congregation.

 

[Victoria33]

? Are all of those who teach “Sola Scriptura” without error as well? If one is talking about certain pastors?

If it its the Bible alone, then, what are the books of the Bible? Why is the Catholic Bible longer?

Ephesians 4:4-6 and other verses talk of 1 church or one faith. How can sola scriptura be correct unless it were to talk about thousands of churches?

The questions in the OP are pretty basic apologetics on Sola Scriptura. I might consider how the OP is framed as well. To assert one has attended a Church and one knows the pastor is wrong. I certainly would not make a judgement like that. I have gone to the Church for decades. That would seem to be an out-of-the-ordinary statement.

Oh yes, and where the Bible state it is all in the Bible?

 

[Vico]

…
I would really appreciate if anyone would clear up this confusion. This is my major issue with the Catholic church.

Catechism

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” . …

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . …

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 …

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 …

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[ziapueblo]

In view of this respect, sola scriptura makes much more sense because the word of God cannot be untrue.

With respect to the “Bible alone”, using the Bible, and the Bible alone, where does the Bible teach the “Bible alone”? How do we know what books belong in the Mew Testament? There is no divine table of contents. How do we know who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, Mark or some of the other Mew Testament books?

The early Church did not have the Scriptures as we have them today yet they flourished. Research some of the earliest manuscripts. Some of them are missing books that are in the Bible we have now and some of them have added books. How do we know which is inspired?

ZP

 

[adf417]

In view of this respect, sola scriptura makes much more sense because the word of God cannot be untrue. Humans might mistakes when they teach and might teach people the wrong things, but God’s word will always be right.

Welcome to CAF joangel!

With respect, put yourself back in time to year 250 AD and ask this same question. If sola scriptura is your conclusion it would include many books of the NT that are not included in the NT today. Then you must ask yourself why this is and by what method did the church use to weed out these many books that ultimately did not belong in the NT. These answers are not in the bible.

Peace!!!

 

[sudy]

Humans might mistakes when they teach

Humans make mistakes when they misinterpret, too.

 

[Convert5]

Going back to the beginning is what helps me. We see in the pages of the NT how to Apostles led with authority - the very authority granted by Christ. (Acts 15 is just one example. among many). There was no canon of scripture for hundreds of years following, and yet the Church grew and flourished. The Bible arose out of the life of the Church, and the understanding of it was through the Church and its Tradition.

Today, there are all manner of Christians who are believing any “wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14) and are quoting verse after verse to support what they want to believe. But is it the truth? Without a continuity of development of doctrine being present, I would be very suspect.

Sola scriptura may sound good on the surface, but when one begins to examine it under the light of history and reason, it is completely unworkable.

 

[commenter]

And there have been so many cases of pastors in the church who teach wrong teachings

Nobody really practices Sola scriptura. There’s ALWAYS a preacher, a book, a website that interprets. Sometimes this is called “rightly dividing the Word”. One Sola scriptura interpretation often refutes another.

It’s not just that a verse can be interpreted in more than one way; the bigger problem is which verses apply in a given topic?

Some Sola scriptura churches later explicitly recognized the need for Tradition. The others are also somewhat relying on Tradition, without realizing it.
Catholicism relies on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

 

[catholicray]

Part of the problem is that you’re lumping the sins of teachers in with what Christ ordained. Remember this,

Jesus established one Church. He also gave the Holy Spirit to that one Church. He didn’t simply give the Spirit to individuals on the fly but rather he gave the Spirit to “lead into all truth”, to the Church He established.

St. Peter was rebuked for his sin but the doctrine of the Church was not rebuked because it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

The only understanding of Scripture that is “garaunteed” to be free from error is that understanding which is given by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads the one Church Jesus founded.

This is how the Apostles were able to write Scripture infallibly though they were imperfect. This is how the Church teaches infallibly, though it gathers in sinners.

To reject the Church is to lose faith in the promise of God that He would send his Spirit to guide it.

That’s how I see it anyways.

 

[awesomecatholic]

No church is perfect. A tradition of the church has to be believed. Sola Scriptura really makes no sense,because the bible does not command it and institutes tradition in the Catholic church. God’s word will always be right,but so is tradition. I know for a fact many pastors out there teach the wrong things,but that does not mean we cannot rely on tradition.

 

[Dlee]

How am I to trust the church when it teaches wrong teachings?

The Church didn’t teach wrong teachings - individual priests (and protestant pastors) have taught in error. Read the CCC for what the Church teaches. You can’t rely on the Bible alone because who do you trust to determine which books should be contained in the Bible? In Sola Scriptura alone, someone has to interpret what it is really saying and meaning. This is where the authority of the CCC and Magisterium comes in.

 

[dochawk]

In view of this respect, sola scriptura makes much more sense because the word of God cannot be untrue

The catch with this line of reasoning is that the very existence of the Bible is an exercise of the teaching authority of the church. It’s not like, at Pentecost, Jesus said, “oh, and there’s a new book on the table when you get back to the room.”

And as others noted herein, sola scriptura is actually in contrast to various Bible passages.

 

[Hodos]

You get a copy of the catechism and read up. If you hear something odd, compare it with the catechism. This is something you cannot do in any bible-based congregation.

Untrue statement. Most mainline denominations have a set of confessional documents and/or catechisms used for this very purpose.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But how am I to trust the church’s interpretation of the bible if there are many pastors who sin within the church? And there have been so many cases of pastors in the church who teach wrong teachings. Am I to blindly accept these teachings?

“A pastor” is NOT “the Church.” That’s the simple answer. And others have suggested going to the Catechism to find answers to questions–because the Catechism is the OFFICIAL teaching of the Church, approved by the Vatican.

As for “sola scriptura,” I think everyone agrees that the Church has been around as an organization since Pentecost. And yet the first Epistles don’t appear till the 50s, Mark till c. 60, Matthew and Luke around 70-80, and John around 90 AD. So I think the question to ask yourself is “If the Church’s authority is solely from the New Testament, did it have any authority before c. 90 AD (in other words roughly 55 years of existence)?” I think the answer is obvious. Yes. So if the Church pre-dates the New Testament, and if the Church decides what is canonical…you can take it from there.