Bible being the Sole Authority??

[Telestia]

I may be wrong, but I do not believe anyone here has said that Sacred Scripture is fallible. That is not the question being debated. Whether or not the Bible is fallible is a whole new thread. The questioned being asked is if the Bible should be the sole authority?

Well, as a former Construction Contractor , bidding on Projects in NYC, NYS, and the Federal Government, the only thing that determined my getting paid, is doing the scope of work as detailed in writing on the Drawings and the specifications. Any variation to contract scope on my part, based upon sole verbal authority of goverment employees, puts me in risk of losing my Profit, or worse. Their words may be compelling, but only the written contract counts.

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, as a former Construction Contractor , bidding on Projects in NYC, NYS, and the Federal Government, the only thing that determined my getting paid, is doing the scope of work as detailed in writing on the Drawings and the specifications. Any variation to contract scope on my part, based upon sole verbal authority of goverment employees, puts me in risk of losing my Profit, or worse. Their words may be compelling, but only the written contract counts.

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

Telestia,

Everything?

Where is that you find this notion. Show me.

 

[joe370]

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

Hey Telestia. Surely sola scriptura advocates would have to prove the preceding from scripture alone. I am not agreeing or disagreeing; I am merely asking you to show me where scripture says: Everything God requires us to do is written down…? For example, I am told that Mary’s IC is found nowhere in scripture, and therefore is not to be believed, by certain non-Catholics.

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10349542]Like I said in my previous post, I think you have some good questions here, questions I will explore in more detail later, and using the documents and site suggested by Porknpie.

Then there were independent local congregations of churches. Each one was called a church. Of about one hundred and twelve times the word ecclesia is used in the Greek New Testament, fully ninety-eight or ninety-nine times it means a local congregation. The other times it refers to that mystical body of Christ . . . not one time is the word “church” in the Bible used to represent any human organisation larger than one local congregation. When a group of local congregations are mentioned, they are called “churches” (plural, not singular), as in Galations 1:2, “the churches of Galatia.” Galations1:22, “the churches of Judaea,” and in Revelation 1:11, “the seven churches which are in Asia.” . . .

Agreed. There are thousands of catholic churches spanning the entire globe, and all of them are united as the one mystical Body of Christ, established by Christ in the first century, on Pentecost. For example, if you and I had lived in the second century it would not have mattered if we attended the church in Corinth or the church in Rome. The same cannot be said about the myriad protestant churches.

If you had asked Paul if he were a member of the Catholic church, he would have looked perplexed, since there was no Catholic church then and he would have answered that the local church at Antioch, after prayer and fasting, had sent him and Barnabas out on their missionary journeys, and that he counted that as his local home church (see Acts 13:1-4).

How can you and I possibly know what Paul would have thought? Ignatius was a disciple of the apostles and he referred to Jesus’ church as the Catholic Church:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Clearly Paul was not a member of one of the Protestant Churches - agreed?

Of course, these are thoughts from a Baptist perspective, but I do see a parallel to this in the thinking of Orthodox Christians. There is a passage in Father Andrew Damick’s book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

that applies to the issue of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction:Another practical problem from this structure which has theological implications is that Catholicity is defined purely by one’s submission to Rome, whose universality is the definition for true ecclesiology. But katholikos (the Greek word from which catholic comes) does not properly mean “universal” but rather, literally, “according to the whole.” For Orthodoxy, this wholeness resides in every diocese with its bishop as the president at the Eucharist, surrounded by his clergy and faithful. Orthodox parishes and dioceses are not merely part of the Catholic Church, but rather manifest catholicity within themselves fully and locally.I understand. I might add: Eastern Orthodox churches are autonomous self-governing churches. Just curious; do you agree with J.N.D.: Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Similarly, at least in my particular Anglican church, there is no authority in terms of oversight of our churches higher than the local Bishop. I believe that was also true in the early church. However, one of the guidelines for participation in the non-Catholics religions forum is, “If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it.” As I said before, I’m willing to look further into issues relating to the structure of the early church, but I’ll have to drop this line of inquiry for now

as I don’t plan to start til after I’ve finished the Michael Barber book.OK. *

 

[SteveVH]

Well, as a former Construction Contractor , bidding on Projects in NYC, NYS, and the Federal Government, the only thing that determined my getting paid, is doing the scope of work as detailed in writing on the Drawings and the specifications. Any variation to contract scope on my part, based upon sole verbal authority of goverment employees, puts me in risk of losing my Profit, or worse. Their words may be compelling, but only the written contract counts.

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

And if one of your subcontractors is given a copy of the orders set forth in the contract and a portion of the language is somewhat ambiguous, should the subcontractor take it upon himself to interpret the language or should he defer to those who created the contract; those who sat down at the table and had lengthy discussions before the final language was agreed upon; those who know what is intended in the language?

Does the Bible, anywhere, state that it contains “everything God requires us to do”?

And if you had a question as to the meaning of a portion of that contract, to whom would you go? Would you not go the one with whom the contract is made and clear up any differences before signing? Or would you just go with your best judgment assuming that your understanding does not conflict with the language in the contract? In any event, when it comes to contract law, there will be a final arbiter of what it means and that would be a judge who has the final say based upon his or her interpretation of the law.

 

[Porknpie]

Telestia,

You say the ECF are accurate and reliable…

I believe the New Testament to be amazingly accurate and reliable, being confirmed by quotations from the Early Church Fathers quoting the the letters that make up the New Testaments. Plus, surely God wants us to know the Truth of His plan for us…

Follow the link below and read what they said about the early Church, especially point II under under church fathers.

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_II

 

[PRmerger]

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

Telestia, this is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing.

You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…

but no one ever read “Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do” in a single page of the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Discussion does seem to go off on tangents sometimes, but that’s part of the fun.

Indeed. I often think that the tributaries of discussion are more interesting than the original question, which is usually answered by page 2 of the thread. Tangential discussions mirror real life discussions which often veer into a multitude of other interesting topics.

That’s why I have an icon of a patio on my Profile.

I imagine us all sitting around someone’s backyard patio, sipping some wine and eating something deliciously unhealthy for us, discussing religion. And naturally, in scenarios such as this, topics diverge, often into more interesting things!

Imagine we’re sitting here, discussing religion. The discussion wouldn’t stay on the original topic, I guarantee that!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I just had the most revealing conversation with a protestant on the place of 3rd john within the new testament. I asked how could one demonstrate from the epistle in of itself as the final authority that it must be scripture? To which this protestant would admit the inheritance from the church fathers and the early church in this matter and that we need him. This was sort of surprising to me and when going further and demonstrating that as a sola scripturist protestant they neccessarily see tradition as a lesser authority to scripture. Yet when you admit the neccessity of the traditions as recorded by the fathers and indeed I would say their influence in of itself, you are basically saying the lesser authority establishes the highest authority. And you can predict the responce, “I don’t need tradition only the bible.”

Words aren’t enough.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I just had the most revealing conversation with a protestant on the place of 3rd john within the new testament. I asked how could one demonstrate from the epistle in of itself as the final authority that it must be scripture? To which this protestant would admit the inheritance from the church fathers and the early church in this matter and that we need him. This was sort of surprising to me and when going further and demonstrating that as a sola scripturist protestant they neccessarily see tradition as a lesser authority to scripture. Yet when you admit the neccessity of the traditions as recorded by the fathers and indeed I would say their influence in of itself, you are basically saying the lesser authority establishes the highest authority. And you can predict the responce, “I don’t need tradition only the bible.”

Words aren’t enough.

I think it kind of depends on what denomination of Protestantism the person is. A Southern Baptist is completely anti Tradition, but a Luthern or Episcopalian may be more open to the thought of Tradition and the role it plays in religion.

Every religion and denomination has some sort of Tradition and tradition. Whether or not they claim it to actually be Tradition is another thing. Many Protestants give the bible the sole authority which is a man-made tradition on their part, but you will never get many of them to say as much.

 

[rfournier103]

Everything God requires us to do is written down for all to see and do. I will not depart from that.

And where might that be in the Bible, Sir? What did Christians have to guide them before c.393 AD? And while we’re at it, where in the Bible is the list of “inspired books”? How do we know they are inspired?

Don’t give me any stuff about some ‘strawman’ baloney… If you believe this, you will have an answer for us; or be able to find an answer for us and get back to us.

Protestants ask Catholics all the time; “where is ______ in the Bible”. Surely, we may do the same of you.

Thank you for your time.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think it kind of depends on what denomination of Protestantism the person is. A Southern Baptist is completely anti Tradition, but a Luthern or Episcopalian may be more open to the thought of Tradition and the role it plays in religion.

Every religion and denomination has some sort of Tradition and tradition. Whether or not they claim it to actually be Tradition is another thing. Many Protestants give the bible the sole authority which is a man-made tradition on their part, but you will never get many of them to say as much.

Thats the thing though. For the protestant we are told scripture is the final authority, scripture is the thing which settles things. Yet scripture in of itself, without recourse to tradition, cannot establish itself. Neccessarily the traditions of the church are lower in rank to scripture, yet you need that lower authority in order to establish your highest authority. I have encountered no good protestant argument to this problem. Because once you allow lower tradition to settle things of faith and doctrine, things that we apparently must believe (Protestants say we ought have a 66 book canon), then why does it stop with that? How about apostolic succession? The celebration of pascha and Lent? That a church is not just local or individual but defined by its communion with other churches that are apostolically ordained?

 

[Telestia]

And where might that be in the Bible, Sir? What did Christians have to guide them before c.393 AD? And while we’re at it, where in the Bible is the list of “inspired books”? How do we know they are inspired?

Don’t give me any stuff about some ‘strawman’ baloney… If you believe this, you will have an answer for us; or be able to find an answer for us and get back to us.

Protestants ask Catholics all the time; “where is ______ in the Bible”. Surely, we may do the same of you.

Thank you for your time.

Your welcome rfournier.

The New Testament was written letter by letter roughly during the first 35 years of Christianity, though the Apocalypse of John was written around 96 AD. These letters would be copied over and over, and passed. Those that got warned down were copied anew and passed around. There was a real hunger by peoples to read the Gospels and Letters of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, so they were copied and copied and so on.

The Copies that formed the NT are so many, that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament today from quotations of the NT letters from the early Church Fathers, only a few sentences from John’s third letter.

BTW, most early Churches rejected the Revelation of John, but it was included in the NT in the 4th century AD. It beat out the Revelation of Peter by two votes.

 

[Telestia]

Telestia,

You might want to look at what Church fathers are quoting the Protocanonicals and which Church fathers are suggesting that the Bible is the Sole Authority. Now that would be something to provide evidence for.

I confess, I’m no expert on it, I read respectful Bible scholars I trust, such as Norman Geisler and Walter kaiser,

 

[Porknpie]

Your welcome rfournier.

The New Testament was written letter by letter roughly during the first 35 years of Christianity, though the Apocalypse of John was written around 96 AD. These letters would be copied over and over, and passed. Those that got warned down were copied anew and passed around. There was a real hunger by peoples to read the Gospels and Letters of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, so they were copied and copied and so on.

The Copies that formed the NT are so many, that we could reconstruct the entire New Testament today from quotations of the NT letters from the early Church Fathers, only a few sentences from John’s third letter.

BTW, most early Churches rejected the Revelation of John, but it was included in the NT in the 4th century AD. It beat out the Revelation of Peter by two votes.

Telestia…so how do you know the books of the NT are inspired?

 

[Porknpie]

I confess, I’m no expert on it, I read respectful Bible scholars I trust, such as Norman Geisler and Walter kaiser,

Telestia…so go to back to 400ad. The church now has the books of the bible (73). Do you believe that they held the written Word of God above Tradition at that time? If not when? And where is this described in either Tradition or the Bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

I confess, I’m no expert on it, I read respectful Bible scholars I trust, such as Norman Geisler and Walter kaiser,

Telestia,

You suggest two votes for Revelation. Where were these votes cast and by whom?

I respect Scholarship. The Catholic Church has a succession of Scholars that rival Giesler and Kaiser. What did Scholars say in the 4th, 5th, 6th century that support your view of beliefs…

I can provide a long list of scholars that support my list of beliefs, that would include

Infant Baptism
Regenerative Baptism
Eucharist as body and blood of Christ

Your scholarship would wane…so why do you follow recent scholarship and not the long standing scholarship of the Church…?

 

[rursus]

I am sure there are many threads like this out there but they have a million post and most are older threads. I am wanting to start a new one.

My question is this (for non Catholics)…Many claim that they are bible believers and that the bible is the sole authority. How do you arrive at that belief when there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that give credit to the argument? Actually there are verses that state the opposite to sola scriptura. Please keep all post respectful!

As a Lutheran I find a naïve belief in sola scriptura simply stupid. We must have a methodology when we interpret the Bible, and by necessity that methodology is culturally defined, f.ex. by some authority, academic and/or religious. What the reformers formulating the wild catchphrase sola scriptura really meant was “throw away those catholic innovations” that couldn’t be directly founded in the bible. As someone else here noted: protestants have a diversity of rites that cannot be directly found in the bible, so sola scriptura is just a propaganda-phrase meaning “clean more!”

 

[CopticChristian]

As a Lutheran I find a naïve belief in sola scriptura simply stupid. We must have a methodology when we interpret the Bible, and by necessity that methodology is culturally defined, f.ex. by some authority, academic and/or religious. What the reformers formulating the wild catchphrase sola scriptura really meant was “throw away those catholic innovations” that couldn’t be directly founded in the bible. As someone else here noted: protestants have a diversity of rites that cannot be directly found in the bible, so sola scriptura is just a propaganda-phrase meaning “clean more!”

Rursus,

I want to be clean. Maybe I need to rethink my allegiance here. Maybe I should consider Lutheranism. What are these “Catholic Innovations” you say are not directly found in the Bible?

Are all Lutheran beliefs directly found in the Bible?

I have to know before I make my move.

 

[jrtrent]

I ran across an interesting site this morning that relates to this thread. One question it addresses is the different things people might mean by sole authority:

Sola Scriptura is the view held by Protestants with this short definition:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian.

Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:

The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/07/can-catholics-affirm-sola-scriptura/

We believe that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority, but not that they are our only authority. For example, we believe that our pastors and church leaders have authority in our lives. Hebrews 13:7 says that we are to obey our leaders. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:2). People are to obey the government (1 Pet. 2:13). Children are to do what their parents say (Eph. 6:1). There can be no excuse like, “Dad, the Bible does not say I have to clean my room, so I choose not to.” Or “Officer, it says nothing specific about running red lights in the Bible.”

As well, tradition (church history) is an authority in our lives. Those who have gone before us in the faith must be respected. Their collective and unified influence creates an authority which, I believe, is second only to Scripture. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/10/what-sola-scriptura-does-not-mean/
​

Mr. Patton also has some interesting quotes on scripture from some early Christian writers.

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant. reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/in-defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-10-a-historical-defense/

Like advocates from a Catholic perspective, Mr. Patton may be giving these quotes out of context and with his own interpretation overlaying them. I really need to take time to find and read more of the early church writings in their entirety.