Bible Alone?

[frangiuliano115]

Hey Fran.

Others may not, but you are right…I’m gonna answer both.

Why can’t we trust the Lord to get us to Heaven by trusting that He left us with correct doctrine and His Church to guide us? Why do you think it is either trust in the Lord or trust in myself?

I mean, of course we must place our faith/belief in Christ…we cannot be saved without that. But doesn’t that faith have an element of obedience to it as well?

Matthew 28:19-20: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…go therefore…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;…”

Hebrews 5:9: “…and being made perfect He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him…”

It seems like to observe what He commands and to obey Him is to live as He taught…which is taught to us as…doctrine.

Isn’t it?

Orthodoxy (right teaching) and orthopraxy (right practice) are given to us by His Church. To trust in those is to trust in Him. Isn’t it?

No JohnGerard, I don’t see trusting Jesus and trusting the church (small c) as being the same.

Here’s the thing: You answer me by assuming that I’m saying that we shouldn’t follow rules by bringing up obedience. I really would like to understand what I said that made you think this. Seriously.

Doctrine is different from rules. Both should be respected. Let’s put it another way.

I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in any doctrine of the church. Am I saved?
(this is not the case, just trying to get myself be udnerstood).

I believe in the church as an institution and even recite the Creed, but I don’t really believe in the Creed or in Jesus. Am I saved?

My point is that it is Jesus who saves us, not the church. It is throught the church or we would never know Him. The sacraments are of the church. The priests. All this is necessary. But, in the final analysis what DOES save us?

I do understand what you’re saying - I fear my position is not understood at all.

Fran

 

[Johnny31897]

And yet that is exactly where the authority of the Church to teach is found. It is where we find Christ’s presentation of the Keys. Without those words once spoken then written, knowing that authority would be difficult.

Jon

I agree that the authority of the Church is found in Matthew 16:16-20. From your previous post, it seemed that you were implying that Catholics must explain their entire theology of papal authority from this text alone.

 

[Michael68]

No JohnGerard, I don’t see trusting Jesus and trusting the church (small c) as being the same.

Here’s the thing: You answer me by assuming that I’m saying that we shouldn’t follow rules by bringing up obedience. I really would like to understand what I said that made you think this. Seriously.

Doctrine is different from rules. Both should be respected. Let’s put it another way.

I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in any doctrine of the church. Am I saved?
(this is not the case, just trying to get myself be udnerstood).

I believe in the church as an institution and even recite the Creed, but I don’t really believe in the Creed or in Jesus. Am I saved?

My point is that it is Jesus who saves us, not the church. It is throught the church or we would never know Him. The sacraments are of the church. The priests. All this is necessary. But, in the final analysis what DOES save us?

I do understand what you’re saying - I fear my position is not understood at all.

Fran

Since Jesus stated the Church (big C) it is safe to assume it is His doctrine

 

[SalusaSecondus]

This verse does not say bible alone. All it says is the bible is good for instruction. It does not say the bible is final authority

It says with all scripture I can be complete or fully equipped. If I can be full with scripture why do I need a pope or magisterium, how much more complete can I be than complete?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Since Jesus stated the Church (big C) it is safe to assume it is His doctrine

Yes. Jesus certainly did start the Church.

I don’t understand His doctrine part.

 

[Michael68]

It says with all scripture I can be complete or fully equipped. If I can be full with scripture why do I need a pope or magisterium, how much more complete can I be than complete?

It says can be complete. To be complete requires Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. How else would you know what you were reading? Private interpretation is dangerous and why there are so many churches. (Little C)

 

[theropod]

1 Corinthians 4:6 is one I’ve seen quoted often.

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another

 

[SalusaSecondus]

It says can be complete. To be complete requires Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. How else would you know what you were reading? Private interpretation is dangerous and why there are so many churches. (Little C)

How do I determine whose sacred tradition I need to be following without relying on my private interpretation?

 

[Michael68]

How do I determine whose sacred tradition I need to be following without relying on my private interpretation?

A safe bet would be the orignal Apostolic Tradition

 

[Michael68]

1 Corinthians 4:6 is one I’ve seen quoted often.

According to your interpretation of this verse you should follow only the OT since that is what was written at the time

 

[SalusaSecondus]

A safe bet would be the orignal Apostolic Tradition

Whose Apostolic Tradition? The Eastern Orthodox’s?

 

[eddie_too]

if a written gospel were what the Lord’s flock needed after His Ascension, He would have written us one and given it to us.

Jesus obviously knew the limitations and dangers of the written word.

considering His superior intellect and perfect graces, Jesus had already experienced, during His life before His public ministry the manner in which the written word created division and led to some men claiming their interpretations were definitive while others disagreed and proclaimed their different interpretations definitive.

 

[theropod]

According to your interpretation of this verse you should follow only the OT since that is what was written at the time

it’s not my interpretation of that verse.

 

[JohnGerard]

No JohnGerard, I don’t see trusting Jesus and trusting the church (small c) as being the same.

You brought up small c church. Do you see trusting Jesus and trusting the Church (big C) as being the same?

I don’t think you can separate the Body of Christ (the Church) from Christ Himself, otherwise it is not His body anymore. He is the head, his Church is His body.

Here’s the thing: You answer me by assuming that I’m saying that we shouldn’t follow rules by bringing up obedience. I really would like to understand what I said that made you think this. Seriously.

I am sorry. I must be misunderstanding you. I was responding to your statement:

“I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.”

I read that as a straight dichotomy…either trust Jesus or trust myself. That seemed to me what you were saying. If I am trusting myself, then I may or may not follow rules…but I am the one who gets to decide which rules I should or should not follow. Nobody else and no Church can decide those for me. And I could decide that their are no rules that I need to follow at all. It sounded to me like that dichotomy would eliminate the Church altogether. (many people live there today).

That’s just how I read that.

Doctrine is different from rules. Both should be respected. Let’s put it another way.

I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in any doctrine of the church. Am I saved?
(this is not the case, just trying to get myself be udnerstood).

Only God could say for sure. Lot’s depends on that. Maybe someone could and someone couldn’t depending on the level of invincible ignorance they each have. (There’s so many ways to think about these hypotheticals that is can be hard to discuss.)
Assuming we know and are aware of the doctrines of the Church, I would say this would be a spiritually dangerous position to be in. Remember, He said, “whoever hears you, hears Me and whoever rejects you, rejects Me.” To reject a teaching of His Church would be to reject Him…and become a “cafeteria Christ follower”. Which would be to not really believe in Jesus, but to believe in a Jesus as we make Him out to be for ourselves.

I believe in the church as an institution and even recite the Creed, but I don’t really believe in the Creed or in Jesus. Am I saved?

It sounds like in this case you have people who would go through motions of religion without the substance…relationship with God. Precarious position.

My point is that it is Jesus who saves us, not the church.

Can the two be separated? Maybe that is the essence of your overall question (unless I am off). I would say no. We cannot separate the two. Not Jesus and The Church which would be His Church which is His body. (I apologize if I am still misunderstanding.)

It is throught the church or we would never know Him. The sacraments are of the church. The priests. All this is necessary. But, in the final analysis what DOES save us?

Jesus saves us. By His life, death, and resurrection. That’s the final analysis, IMO.

What **we **have to do cannot be boiled down to one thing, I don’t think. Do we have to believe in Jesus? Yes. Do we have to obey Him? Yes. Do we have to forgive other people? Yes. Do we have to love God and neighbor? Yes. It is not just one thing.

I do understand what you’re saying - I fear my position is not understood at all.

Hey Fran. I know you know your stuff from your other posts. I am sorry if I am missing your point here.

 

[Michael68]

it’s not my interpretation of that verse.

Could you please tell me what you think it means?

 

[frangiuliano115]

You brought up small c church. Do you see trusting Jesus and trusting the Church (big C) as being the same?

I don’t think you can separate the Body of Christ (the Church) from Christ Himself, otherwise it is not His body anymore. He is the head, his Church is His body.

I am sorry. I must be misunderstanding you. I was responding to your statement:

“I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.”

I read that as a straight dichotomy…either trust Jesus or trust myself. That seemed to me what you were saying. If I am trusting myself, then I may or may not follow rules…but I am the one who gets to decide which rules I should or should not follow. Nobody else and no Church can decide those for me. And I could decide that their are no rules that I need to follow at all. It sounded to me like that dichotomy would eliminate the Church altogether. (many people live there today).

That’s just how I read that.

Only God could say for sure. Lot’s depends on that. Maybe someone could and someone couldn’t depending on the level of invincible ignorance they each have. (There’s so many ways to think about these hypotheticals that is can be hard to discuss.)
Assuming we know and are aware of the doctrines of the Church, I would say this would be a spiritually dangerous position to be in. Remember, He said, “whoever hears you, hears Me and whoever rejects you, rejects Me.” To reject a teaching of His Church would be to reject Him…and become a “cafeteria Christ follower”. Which would be to not really believe in Jesus, but to believe in a Jesus as we make Him out to be for ourselves.

It sounds like in this case you have people who would go through motions of religion without the substance…relationship with God. Precarious position.

Can the two be separated? Maybe that is the essence of your overall question (unless I am off). I would say no. We cannot separate the two. Not Jesus and The Church which would be His Church which is His body. (I apologize if I am still misunderstanding.)

Jesus saves us. By His life, death, and resurrection. That’s the final analysis, IMO.

What **we **have to do cannot be boiled down to one thing, I don’t think. Do we have to believe in Jesus? Yes. Do we have to obey Him? Yes. Do we have to forgive other people? Yes. Do we have to love God and neighbor? Yes. It is not just one thing.

Hey Fran. I know you know your stuff from your other posts. I am sorry if I am missing your point here.

Okay. I think I know where the problem may lie. It’s important to me because I do get misunderstood.

Going out for pizza though.

Either later or tomorrow…
Thanks for being so nice - some aren’t.

Fran

 

[PoorKnight]

Can any Protestant show one scripture that says we are to follow the bible alone as final authority?

Don’t forget to ask for a definition of “Sola Scriptura.” I’ll bet the Lutheran and Anglican commentators here would have a much different definition than a Reformed Calvinist or Southern Baptist, especially when it comes to the role of pastors, the Church - have them define that too - Tradition and other outside sources to help us understand the Scriptures.

That’s something many Catholics don’t know, and many non-Catholic Christians gloss over, is that there is no one set definition of “Sola Scriptura”.

As for verses of course most Protestants - used colloquially - would pull out either 2 Tim 3:16-17, Acts 17:11 or 1 Cor 4:6. However none of them contain the phrase “Bible Alone” on the literal level, and in context none of them teach even the concepts of Sola Scriptura either in that none of them remove the necessity of other authorities.

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[Michael68]

Don’t forget to ask for a definition of “Sola Scriptura.” I’ll bet the Lutheran and Anglican commentators here would have a much different definition than a Reformed Calvinist or Southern Baptist, especially when it comes to the role of pastors, the Church - have them define that too - Tradition and other outside sources to help us understand the Scriptures.

That’s something many Catholics don’t know, and many non-Catholic Christians gloss over, is that there is no one set definition of “Sola Scriptura”.

As for verses of course most Protestants - used colloquially - would pull out either 2 Tim 3:16-17, Acts 17:11 or 1 Cor 4:6. However none of them contain the phrase “Bible Alone” on the literal level, and in context none of them teach even the concepts of Sola Scriptura either in that none of them remove the necessity of other authorities.

God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

All of this diversity sorta proves my point that we cannot go by the bible alone and there must be some other authority

 

[guanophore]

The passage says that we are to put our trust in HIM.

I’m catholic and have been here at CAF since July. I’m starting to wonder what we put our faith in. Jesus or doctrine?

You’re going to answer both. It can’t be both. I’m either trusting the Lord to get me to heaven or I’m trusting in my understanding of doctrine - which is equivalent to trusting in myself.

You got my lines down!

Again you have created a false dichotomy. We do not trust in our own understanding of doctrine. Doctrine is the Teaching of Jesus that has been committed to the Church, and is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not separated from His Teachings. He told us “if you love me, you will keep my commandments”. We follow the Teachings BECAUSE we trust in him to get us to heaven!

No JohnGerard, I don’t see trusting Jesus and trusting the church (small c) as being the same.

I think what you are saying is that you do not really trust in Jesus’ promise to protect the Church from error.

That you do not trust that the Holy Spirit can, or has, protected the Teachings of Jesus infallibly in the Church.

Here's the thing:  You answer me by assuming that I'm saying that we shouldn't follow rules by bringing up obedience.  I really would like to understand what I said that made you think this.  Seriously.

We do not separate Jesus (the Head) from His One Body (the Church). He does not have a headless body!

Doctrine is different from rules. Both should be respected. Let’s put it another way.

I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe in any doctrine of the church. Am I saved?
(this is not the case, just trying to get myself be udnerstood).

If you are a Catholic Catechist (or were) and now have abandoned you faith in the doctrines of the Church, then you may have willfullly anc consciously rejected the ark of your salvation, so you may be at risk.

Beyond that, we are not in a position to judge the state of anyone’s soul.

I think we would agree that those who are being saved are “in Christ”. Where we apparently do not agree is that being “in Christ” means to listen and obey those He has placed over us as the shepherds of our souls.

I believe in the church as an institution and even recite the Creed, but I don’t really believe in the Creed or in Jesus. Am I saved?

I think you are asking if a person can be saved if they don’t have a relationship with Christ?

My point is that it is Jesus who saves us, not the church.

The two are not separated. He saves us THROUGH the Church.

 It is throught the church or we would never know Him.  The sacraments are of the church.  The priests.  All this is necessary.  But, in the final analysis what DOES save us?

I often think that Protestants focus on what I call the “readers’ digest” version of the faith, cutting everything down to the minimum. I am not sure why? If Jesus created the Church, and joined us to her, can we not trust that this is important?

I do understand what you’re saying - I fear my position is not understood at all.

Fran

Perhaps not. Is there some way you can make your point without creating false dichotomies?

Yes. Jesus certainly did start the Church.

I don’t understand His doctrine part.

It is very distressing to hear this from a Catechist.:bigyikes:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

All of this diversity sorta proves my point that we cannot go by the bible alone and there must be some other authority

Diversity does not prove you or me right