Best defense for sola scriptura?

[adf417]

Hi SojournerOnEarth and welcome to CAF

Your statment:

There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word in our view.

And…

The church is not the author of Scripture, and does not have authority over it.

Is very troubling.

Do you not agree the church is the body of Christ? Do you dare separate Christ from God?

Peace!!!

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Hi SojournerOnEarth and welcome to CAF

Your statment:

There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word in our view.

The church is the body of Christ, yes. And I do not date separate Christ from God, Christ being the second Person of the Trinity. No one could separate Christ from God, since the second Person of the Trinity is necessarily related to the other Persons in the Trinity. I do not see your second question as consequent to the first.

 

[adf417]

The church is the body of Christ, yes. And I do not date separate Christ from God, Christ being the second Person of the Trinity. No one could separate Christ from God, since the second Person of the Trinity is necessarily related to the other Persons in the Trinity. I do not see your second question as consequent to the first.

Do you not see how the statements of

There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word in our view.

And…

The church is not the author of Scripture, and does not have authority over it.

Are seperating Christ from the church?

“There was the word and then the church came” implies the church, the body of Christ, was at some point not in existence.

“The church is not the author of Scripture” implies either the church is not the body of Christ and/or Christ is not God, the author of scripture.

These heresies were faught and overcome by the early church.
I hope you have a better explanation to non believers than this when they ask.

Peace!!!

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

The church is the body of Christ, yes. And I do not date separate Christ from God, Christ being the second Person of the Trinity. No one could separate Christ from God, since the second Person of the Trinity is necessarily related to the other Persons in the Trinity. I do not see your second question as consequent to the first.

Do you not see how the statements of

There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word in our view.

And…

The church is not the author of Scripture, and does not have authority over it.

Are seperating Christ from the church?

“There was the word and then the church came” implies the church, the body of Christ, was at some point not in existence.

“The church is not the author of Scripture” implies either the church is not the body of Christ and/or Christ is not God, the author of scripture.

These heresies were faught and overcome by the early church.
I hope you have a better explanation to non believers than this when they ask.

Peace!!!

Funny.

The two statements do not separate Christ from the church. And certainly there was a time when the church was not in existence. Or are you suggesting it is outside time and has always existing, even before time began? Apparently you think this suggestion is not heretical.

There was also the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, Who became man (took humanity as an attribute, to be more explicit). Are you suggesting He had a body before His incarnation? Then He would not have become incarnate, already having been incarnate, so he could not become incarnate. And you are suggesting I am heretical here?

I would like to see some church documents supporting your position.

 

[JonNC]

Hello Gabriel
I think it depends on how the term "sola " is understood. Certainly your view as you describe it is one protestants should look at.

 

[adf417]

Funny.

The two statements do not separate Christ from the church. And certainly there was a time when the church was not in existence. Or are you suggesting it is outside time and has always existing, even before time began? Apparently you think this suggestion is not heretical.

There was also the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, Who became man (took humanity as an attribute, to be more explicit). Are you suggesting He had a body before His incarnation? Then He would not have become incarnate, already having been incarnate, so he could not become incarnate. And you are suggesting I am heretical here?

I would like to see some church documents supporting your position.

Nothing funnny about seperating Christ from the church, nothing at all.

If you do not agree the statements you posted separate Christ from the church i suggest you read up on ALL the early heriseies of the church and then tell it to the martyrs who defended the faith back then. Im sure they would differ.

Peace!!!

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Funny.

The two statements do not separate Christ from the church. And certainly there was a time when the church was not in existence. Or are you suggesting it is outside time and has always existing, even before time began? Apparently you think this suggestion is not heretical.

There was also the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, Who became man (took humanity as an attribute, to be more explicit). Are you suggesting He had a body before His incarnation? Then He would not have become incarnate, already having been incarnate, so he could not become incarnate. And you are suggesting I am heretical here?

I would like to see some church documents supporting your position.

Nothing funnny about seperating Christ from the church, nothing at all.

If you do not agree the statements you posted separate Christ from the church i suggest you read up on ALL the early heriseies of the church and then tell it to the martyrs who defended the faith back then. Im sure they would differ.

Peace!!!

I was referring to your assertion as a funny thing to say. Some more caustic terms come to mind.

Perhaps you can identify what heresy you are accusing me of.

 

[adf417]

Perhaps you can identify what heresy you are accusing me of.

Im not accusing you of heresy, that would be far above my paygrade.

I am saying that using the language you use “There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word” and “The church is not the author of Scripture” is language that is conducive to that of the early heresies in their attempt to seperate Christ and the Father.

Monarchianism, Monophysitism and Arianism, or a combination of them, come to mind

Peace!!!

 

[exnihilo]

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

The authentic interpretation belongs to the Holy Spirit. To us this claim (that it belongs to the church) is an arrogation. Wicked. Sinful. Prideful. Bordering on blasphemy,if not outright crossing into it. Repugnant. Unacceptable.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Perhaps you can identify what heresy you are accusing me of.

Im not accusing you of heresy, that would be far above my paygrade.

I am saying that using the language you use “There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word” and “The church is not the author of Scripture” is language that is conducive to that of the early heresies in their attempt to seperate Christ and the Father.

Monarchianism, Monophysitism and Arianism, or a combination of them, come to mind

Peace!!!

They come to your mind. I don’t see it. Show me. And you accused me of heresy, and then denied it, and here you are doing it again. Good grief.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

SojournerOnEarth:

Perhaps you can identify what heresy you are accusing me of.

Im not accusing you of heresy, that would be far above my paygrade.

I am saying that using the language you use “There was the Word, and then the Church came from the Word” and “The church is not the author of Scripture” is language that is conducive to that of the early heresies in their attempt to seperate Christ and the Father.

Monarchianism, Monophysitism and Arianism, or a combination of them, come to mind

Peace!!!

They come to your mind. I don’t see it. Show me. And you accused me of heresy, and then denied it, and here you are doing it again. Good grief.

That doesn’t surprise me that you don’t see it. Maybe, just maybe, if you ask the Holy Spirit to show you He would oblige, I don’t know but I do have hope. But this too is certainly above my pay grade as far as making you see anything. All I can do is point you in the direction to what I have.

Whatever the case I wouldn’t get to “grieved” about it!

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

exnihilo:

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

The authentic interpretation belongs to the Holy Spirit. To us this claim (that it belongs to the church) is an arrogation. Wicked. Sinful. Prideful. Bordering on blasphemy,if not outright crossing into it. Repugnant. Unacceptable.

I disagree. Christ instituted the Church teach, preach, and administer the sacraments. On this I think Catholics would agree. Where we disagree is in where Church authority resides.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

I’m not willing to accept that Holy Scripture placed that authority in the hands of one bishop, even the one who clearly holds a certain primacy. I think one can and should argue that the "development of doctrine " (innovation?) around papal supremacy has actually harmed Church authority, at least in the way the Church is divided as a result.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

exnihilo:

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

I disagree. Christ instituted the Church teach, preach, and administer the sacraments. On this I think Catholics would agree. Where we disagree is in where Church authority resides.

I agree that “Christ instituted the Church teach, preach, and administer the sacraments.” Hope that helps.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

SojournerOnEarth:

exnihilo:

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

I disagree. Christ instituted the Church to teach, preach, and administer the sacraments. On this I think Catholics would agree. Where we disagree is in where Church authority resides.

I agree that “Christ instituted the Church teach, preach, and administer the sacraments.” Hope that helps.

Sure, but you said,"The authentic interpretation belongs to the Holy Spirit. ". I think the Church is the tool of the Holy Spirit to do just that.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

JonNC:

SojournerOnEarth:

exnihilo:

JonNC:

They’ve found the CC to be in error from scripture and from the position of the historical Church. Much of what is criticized is from "development of doctrine ". And some of those criticisms are connected to methods of hermeneutics

Then we have question begging. The authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture is the role of the Church, and Lutherans rejected the established Church because it violated Holy Scripture. At the time of this initial rejection it is quite clear where the Church was and what it taught about Holy Scripture, which was at odds with Lutheran teaching.

I disagree. Christ instituted the Church to teach, preach, and administer the sacraments. On this I think Catholics would agree. Where we disagree is in where Church authority resides.

I agree that “Christ instituted the Church teach, preach, and administer the sacraments.” Hope that helps.

Sure, but you said,"The authentic interpretation belongs to the Holy Spirit. ". I think the Church is the tool of the Holy Spirit to do just that.

I’ll stand by both my statements and maintain they are not contradictory. I am not sure how to go further with respect to your last statement because anything I say could be subject to misinterpretation, especially if I get it wrong. God does use the Church. However, the Church does not have the same level of inerrancy the Scripture does. Men are still fallible in their interpretation of Scripture. In the end, we appeal to the Holy Spirit to make it clear, Who will in His time.

 

[JonNC]

I will try not to misinterpret you

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I will try not to misinterpret you

I don’t think you will. But there are others around here…

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not willing to accept that Holy Scripture placed that authority in the hands of one bishop, even the one who clearly holds a certain primacy. I think one can and should argue that the "development of doctrine " (innovation?) around papal supremacy has actually harmed Church authority, at least in the way the Church is divided as a result.

I can only say that as I pondered the question I decided that the Catholic view of where to find the Church was the only one that held up if I wasn’t going to end up just siding with the interpretation I agree with. The Church divided from the earliest days. Folks were always disagreeing.

The Catholic understanding of the Church seems to me the only one that could ever bring the Church back together. The Orthodox can’t. They can’t even get an intra orthodox synod going. Protestants can’t. I think you’d agree with me that the unification/ecumenism in Protestantism has only been among those groups who have views seriously contrary to Scriptures and Tradition. In my opinion the Protestants ethos has been one of division. The Orthodox are able to maintain decent order precisely because they see the Church as having a hierarchy, even if their view is imperfect.