Bible being the Sole Authority??

[benjohnson]

What I find fascinating is that Catholic shouldn’t be afraid of the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura ; as God doesn’t contradict himself, there will never be a case where any valid authority would every be contrary to the Word of God. If Lutherans insist of double-checking with the Bible, it should not be an issue.

From a Lutheran standpoint - we have used Sola Scriptura to shine a light on practices that were not proper. But in theory, no validly operating church should fear Sola Scriptura - in fact they should be happy if they past the test as it lends even more credence to their practices.

 

[SteveVH]

What I find fascinating is that Catholic shouldn’t be afraid of the Lutheran practice of Sola Scriptura ; as God doesn’t contradict himself, there will never be a case where any valid authority would every be contrary to the Word of God. If Lutherans insist of double-checking with the Bible, it should not be an issue.

From a Lutheran standpoint - we have used Sola Scriptura to shine a light on practices that were not proper. But in theory, no validly operating church should fear Sola Scriptura - in fact they should be happy if they past the test as it lends even more credence to their practices.

You make a good point, however, isn’t Scripture subject to one’s interpretation? This is one of the issues, I think, that Catholics have with sola scriptura. While we all agree that it is the word of God, we do not agree across the board on what that word says. In the end the authority lies in the interpreter, not in the text. We believe that God has designated the magisterium of the Church as that authentic interpreter and that one would be in error to the extent that one departs from that interpretation.

 

[JonNC]

You make a good point, however, isn’t Scripture subject to one’s interpretation? This is one of the issues, I think, that Catholics have with sola scriptura. While we all agree that it is the word of God, we do not agree across the board on what that word says. In the end the authority lies in the interpreter, not in the text. We believe that God has designated the magisterium of the Church as that authentic interpreter and that one would be in error to the extent that one departs from that interpretation.

I think, Steve, this is the heart of the matter. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it takes the Church to interpret scripture. The question is does the Magisterium have that authority.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I think, Steve, this is the heart of the matter. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it takes the Church to interpret scripture. The question is does the Magisterium have that authority.

Jon

Well…Jon…we have our Magisterium…you also have a magisterium…it is not just like that of the CC…and you do not call it a magisterium.

The question then also is…why do you follow your magisterium? Does it also have the authority you are asking?

 

[SteveVH]

I think, Steve, this is the heart of the matter. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it takes the Church to interpret scripture. The question is does the Magisterium have that authority.

Jon

I think it can be demonstrated that the Church was given the authority. The question I would have is why Lutherans believe that authority left the Catholic Church and ended up in the Lutheran Church. In other words, if the Catholic magisteruim does not have the authority, why are we to believe that the Lutheran Church does? From whence did it come?

 

[aidanbradypop]

For those who seem to think, and often complain, that Catholics at CAF attack and don’t dialogue, just take a look at the level of charitable dialogue in the last number of posts. I my premise (hypothetical) strikes right at the importance of Tradition for Catholics!!

Thanks, guys.

Jon

Jon you know we love ya even though you are a heretic that spells his name without a “h” lolup

 

[Nicea325]

Not at all. At least I didn’t intend that. I was more thinking on the hypothetical that the Apostles had chosen to write nothing. Clearly Christ established the Church on Pentecost, before the writing had probably begun.

Jon

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I understand your point.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not at all. At least I didn’t intend that. I was more thinking on the hypothetical that the Apostles had chosen to write nothing. Clearly Christ established the Church on Pentecost, before the writing had probably begun.

Jon

I have always wondered about the other Apostles (Phillip, Andrew, Bartholomew (Nathanael), Simon the zealot, James the less, Thomas, Matthias).

Are there writings of them that we might find in the future?

They were Apostles, is their teaching less valid than those that are written?

Just a thought.

 

[lambofabraham]

My first post!

A thought: Logically, the New Testament cannot possibly declare that we are to follow it alone. The letters themselves were not “Scripture” when they were written - so anywhere that appears to imply that you should “only follow Scripture” would have to be referring you to “only follow” the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. So, if you are following the New Testament and believe that it states “follow only scripture” then that means you should only follow the Old Testament.

Do you see…the issue… here? You can’t hold the New Testament to be the ultimate, infallible Truth *and *believe that is says to follow the Bible alone, because then the New Testament would be saying not to follow the New Testament writings.

And if you don’t believe in the New Testament writings but only the Old Testament, then you would be Jewish. And Judaism also doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura fin reference to the Old Testament. Isn’t that fun?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My first post!

A thought: Logically, the New Testament cannot possibly declare that we are to follow it alone. The letters themselves were not “Scripture” when they were written - so anywhere that appears to imply that you should “only follow Scripture” would have to be referring you to “only follow” the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. So, if you are following the New Testament and believe that it states “follow only scripture” then that means you should only follow the Old Testament.

Do you see…the issue… here? You can’t hold the New Testament to be the ultimate, infallible Truth *and *believe that is says to follow the Bible alone, because then the New Testament would be saying not to follow the New Testament writings.

And if you don’t believe in the New Testament writings but only the Old Testament, then you would be Jewish. And Judaism also doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura fin reference to the Old Testament. Isn’t that fun?

Welcome to CAF

 

[lambofabraham]

Welcome to CAF

Thank you!

Peace.

 

[mackbrislawn]

My first post!

A thought: Logically, the New Testament cannot possibly declare that we are to follow it alone. The letters themselves were not “Scripture” when they were written - so anywhere that appears to imply that you should “only follow Scripture” would have to be referring you to “only follow” the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. So, if you are following the New Testament and believe that it states “follow only scripture” then that means you should only follow the Old Testament.

Do you see…the issue… here? You can’t hold the New Testament to be the ultimate, infallible Truth *and *believe that is says to follow the Bible alone, because then the New Testament would be saying not to follow the New Testament writings.

And if you don’t believe in the New Testament writings but only the Old Testament, then you would be Jewish. And Judaism also doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura fin reference to the Old Testament. Isn’t that fun?

I like your thinking.

 

[cheezey]

My first post!

A thought: Logically, the New Testament cannot possibly declare that we are to follow it alone. The letters themselves were not “Scripture” when they were written - so anywhere that appears to imply that you should “only follow Scripture” would have to be referring you to “only follow” the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. So, if you are following the New Testament and believe that it states “follow only scripture” then that means you should only follow the Old Testament.

Do you see…the issue… here? You can’t hold the New Testament to be the ultimate, infallible Truth *and *believe that is says to follow the Bible alone, because then the New Testament would be saying not to follow the New Testament writings.

And if you don’t believe in the New Testament writings but only the Old Testament, then you would be Jewish. And Judaism also doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura fin reference to the Old Testament. Isn’t that fun?

:hypno:

 

[aidanbradypop]

My first post!

A thought: Logically, the New Testament cannot possibly declare that we are to follow it alone. The letters themselves were not “Scripture” when they were written - so anywhere that appears to imply that you should “only follow Scripture” would have to be referring you to “only follow” the Hebrew Scriptures, not the New Testament. So, if you are following the New Testament and believe that it states “follow only scripture” then that means you should only follow the Old Testament.

Do you see…the issue… here? You can’t hold the New Testament to be the ultimate, infallible Truth *and *believe that is says to follow the Bible alone, because then the New Testament would be saying not to follow the New Testament writings.

And if you don’t believe in the New Testament writings but only the Old Testament, then you would be Jewish. And Judaism also doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura fin reference to the Old Testament. Isn’t that fun?

You are on to something. Thanks for sharing

 

[srtc10]

Scripture, (a collection of inspired books) as the sole and final authority cannot discern truth; scripture, as the sole and final authority cannot interpret scripture.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Catholics acknowledge that Scripture is infallible and inerrant. You stated here that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Do you mean by that it is not able to be harmonized with itself?

After all, people discern truth: people interpret scripture. With that said, who was given the sole and final authority to interpret scripture and discern the truths found within the pages of sacred scripture, in your opinion?

Are you asking which “people” were given the authority to interpret Scripture?

Please show me, in the holy Bible, where God teaches that the holy Bible is the Christians sole and final Authority?

The problem with your question lies in what the definition of “Christians” is. I’m quite sure your definition is different than mine.

 

[srtc10]

Yeah and Jesus is the NT

Jesus is not the NT.

Tell me what Bible did Abraham use as his final authority?

Abraham received his revelation directly from God Himself.

 

[srtc10]

Who canonzied the OT to be part of scripture, of the Bible as you know it today?

Who canonized the OT that Jesus spoke of in Luke 24 before the NT was written?

 

[PRmerger]

You stated here that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Do you mean by that it is not able to be harmonized with itself?

If “Scripture interprets Scripture” means Scripture is in harmony with itself, then no Catholic ought to disagree with that.

But what is typically meant by “Scripture interprets Scripture” is that the Bible is the final authority…and, well, that just doesn’t gel.

BTW: Scripture interprets Scripture is a man-made maxim. It is something never proclaimed by the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Who canonized the OT that Jesus spoke of in Luke 24 before the NT was written?

There were a multitude of Jewish canons, srtc. Without a magisterium to discern which was the correct one, there were differing opinions and no authority to declare the correct one.

Jesus, of course, quoted from the Septuagint, which is the OT canon the Catholic Church uses.

 

[SteveVH]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Catholics acknowledge that Scripture is infallible and inerrant.

Since the Bible came from the Catholic Church and Catholic bishops discerned the sacred texts as the inspired word of God, yes, we believe that the Bible is inerrant. It cannot be infallible as infallibility requires human discernment aided by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You stated here that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Do you mean by that it is not able to be harmonized with itself?

He probably means that Scripture cannot interpret Scripture. Just as in the case of calling the Bible “infallible”, this is a great example of people anthropomorphizing the written word. The written word cannot think. It cannot reason. It cannot interpret, rather it must be interpreted. It is, however, inerrant when taught in the light of Sacred Tradition and the magisterium of the Church. The Bible is inerrant. The Church is infallible. Both must be true if we are to be certain of the truth. It does one no good to have an inerrant text of which he has little or no understanding, or worse, an erroneous understanding. The inspired nature of the Bible requires as its compliment an infallible interpreter. I think John Henry Newman said that.