Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Carl, what does the Bible say, is the rule of faith or the foundation of truth? Is it the bible or the praxis of norming, according to Josiah?

Not according to the Bible. Not one singular thing is our guiding principle or rule of faith; it is a combination of what we have done in the past and what was handed on to us (called Tradition) and the Bible. In order to find out what the foundation of truth is, we only need to go back a few pages to 1 Timothy 3:15:

• “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

1 Timothy 3:15 clearly explains that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. “The pillar and foundation of truth” refers only to “the church” in that sentence, and I am aware that it doesn’t refer to the CC or any of the PC’s! Some will contest that it depends on one’s definition of “church.” That is a valid argument, but it works under any of the accepted definitions of church.

One argument against, is that the church is not a building, it is just the believers, as Josiah insists. Well, I agree with him, but only in a particular sense. No, the church is not just a building and the Catholic Church clearly recognizes that. In fact there is no one single Catholic church building, it is an amalgam of churches worldwide, that recognize appointed authorities just like in the time of the apostles!

Jesus appointed specific people, 12 to be exact, to carry out his mission. Even though Jesus has many, many followers, he called out 12 specific individuals to guide his flock. Even in Jesus’ time there was a structured church. In fact the church could not exist if Jesus had not been around to start it himself and he did, but he left it in the hands of Peter, Paul and His other apostles(Mt 16:13-19), who in turn passed the baton to successors, such as Timothy, Barnabas and Titus, who were charged to do the same.

So, we see that there was a church, with a specific structure of leaders, as per the NT, that were called by God to lead His church. This is the Catholic definition of church. Now, if the church is founded upon the leaders…

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

…then it is safe to say that the church can also mean “the leaders” or “the one’s with teaching authority.”

Another way of looking at it is that the pillar and foundation of truth is the teaching office of the church, since they are the ones with the teaching authority (Mt 16:19, 18:18) commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. Jesus passed on to us the church, not the Bible. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith according to the Bible; it is the people called and commissioned by God and the holy Scriptures along with Tradition. Neither is separate or greater from the other since both were given to us from God.

Regarding SS as our final authority, we can’t simply quote the bible when trying to prove the this or the authenticity of the Bible; This circular logic will not work. If I say that I am the President of the US, does that mean I am because I said so? No! I would need another recognized authority or governing body to declare that I am such before it can be recognized by others, just as Jesus is the recognized authority…

*“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
*

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

…who declared that His church is to teach and be His witnesses to the ends of the earth. Something outside the Bible has to verify the trustworthiness, sacredness and doctrinal truth of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? Was it the Baptist church or the Pentecostal church or the Methodist church or the Lutheran church or any PC for that matter, that was founded/started by Jesus Christ, whose leaders can trace their office back to one of the 12 Apostles or is it the CC (and the EOC’s) - whose leaders can trace their office back to one of the 12 Apostles? The only reason why any Christian today has reverence for the Bible is because the Catholic Church has said that the books contained therein are sacred Scripture. The fact that we as Christians, revere Scripture and follow what is contained within, is a Tradition of the Catholic Church. Some people follow Catholic teachings and don’t even know it!

Sacred scripture is the authoritative word of God and is absolutely indispensable for “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” St. Jerome - But, by itself it cannot evaluate or arbitrate anything, unless of course the Bible is self-interpretive, which begs the question: why the need for pastors and ministers?

Carl what are your thoughts?

 

[moondweller]

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into all truth regarding John 6?

The content of the N.T. Scriptures IS the “all truth” into which the Holy Spirit guided them. According to the Scriptures He would bring to their remembrance all that Christ said to them (Jn. 14:26), and guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:13). That “truth” into which they were guided by Him was also preserved by Him in Holy Writ for subsequent generations, just as He’s done since Moses.

What you’re asking is not a Sola Scriptura issue but a hermeneutical/exegetical one. Based on an exegetical study of the “truth” revealed and preserved in John chapter six, what makes you think Jesus, in John chapter six, was making any reference, whatsoever, to the institution of “Communion” he would establish in the upper room the night before His crucifixion?

It is quite significant that John does not go on to record in his Gospel account Christ’s words when instituting the ordinance of “Communion.” And those Gospel accounts that do record Christ’s words when instituting the ordinance don’t record what Christ said in John chapter six. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that “Communion” fulfills the words Jesus spoke to the unbelieving crowd in John chapter six. The ordinance is for believers, not unbelievers. You, in fact, read a lot into those words in John chapter six that Scripture itself does not at all communicate.

You see, Joe, what you have here is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue, not a Sola Scriptura issue.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into all truth regarding John 6?
The content of the N.T. Scriptures IS the “all truth” into which the Holy Spirit guided them. According to the Scriptures He would bring to their remembrance all that Christ said to them (Jn. 14:26), and guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:13). That “truth” into which they were guided by Him was also preserved by Him in Holy Writ for subsequent generations, just as He’s done since Moses.

What you’re asking is not a Sola Scriptura issue but a hermeneutical/exegetical one. Based on an exegetical study of the “truth” revealed and preserved in John chapter six,

OK…Exegetically and hermeneutically speaking, please answer the following question, even if you don’t think that it is SS related:

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into the one truth regarding John 6 (Eucharist)? Are they both right or just one of them? If just one of them then how do we determine which one is right and which one is wrong? Please, just answer the question which SS cannot answer; SS needs an outside arbitrator, evaluator!!! Help me find that arbitrator/evaluator that can do what sola scriptura cannot?

what makes you think Jesus, in John chapter six, was making any reference, whatsoever, to the institution of “Communion” he would establish in the upper room the night before His crucifixion?

You answer my question and I will answer yours. Ask Jon and Josiah that same question.

You see, Joe, what you have here is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue, not a Sola Scriptura issue.

MD, the following question is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue:

If the CC leadership (any church leadership for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for trustworthy/accurate edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what, in the end, arbitrates, evaluates and determines whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect???

 

[lome]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

Sola scriptura can’t never be depended.The Jews who uses the few books of the old
testament can also declare Sola Torah for the same thing was spoken in the law of Moses.

Before the Bible ,there was the church and is today.Before the invention of the printing press God is known through Oral and Holy Traditions.They have to rely in the preaching of the early apostles .How can the protestants accept the whole testament while rejecting the Authority of the Catholic Church that gave it to them in the first place?

The whole new Catholic New Testaments belongs to the Catholic Church!

 

[Bengoshi]

There’s a point when the oral tradition was written down to become written tradition, do you agree? I don’t think the Catholic Church has a list of oral tradition that they have received, correct? If you can give me a list of oral tradition that the Catholic Church received, please post it so I can read them for myself.

Oh, and let us not forget that hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, only documented and first-hand testimonies.

The Bible, being documented first-hand testimonies, are admissible and may be given credence, whereas, those passed on orally (tradition), cannot.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

In accordance with the subject of this thread I will give my reasons for accepting Scripture alone.

Enjoyed reading your post…

Scripture alone does not mean everything we can know is found in the Bible. It means the Bible is the only infallible record of divine revelation and that everything we need to know for salvation is clearly set out either explicitly or implicitly. The Calvinist Confession of Westminster says. reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

This does not deny a place for tradition but it is subordinate to Scripture and it is not necessary for salvation. Scripture itself would seem to indicate that there are things not recorded in it.

As I see it, this represents a logical contradiction. Let me explain:

If God had handed man the completed text we now call the Bible, and said something like, “This is all mankind needs to know the truth about Me and the Salvation that has been accomplished through My Son”, that would allow for such a position as you have presented here (Tradition is subordinate to Scripture). And, make no mistake - God could have certainly done this in a method similar to the way He gave Moses the Ten Commandments. But, as we know, mankind did not get the Bible this way because God chose to work through weak and sinful men to get His Message to us.

Ultimately, it would take about 400 years after the birth of Christ before we have what we now call the Bible. So the first logical issue is: Tradition (and not Scripture) was the first on the scene in explaining the Message of Christ to all. All of the works of Scripture that came before Christ (the Old Testament) plus the works of many authors were examined by the Catholic Church under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was the Catholic Church that gave the world the Bible - not the Bible that gave the world the Catholic Church. Arguments, such as you have presented, literally place the cart before the horse. Since God has chosen to work through weak and sinful men, He has also chosen to work through time and history to bring us to this position.

John tells us that not all that Jesus did is in his book. I used the words “would seem to indicate there are things not recorded in Scripture” because John is referring only to what is in his book. It is unknown how much of what he didn’t record is in the other Gospels. Even so, John does not leave it at saying that Jesus did other things. He adds the purpose of his book is that we may believe and believing have life in Christ’s name. It seems he is asserting that his book contains what we need. If he can say this for his own book, how much more is it true when we add the rest of the Bible?

I think you have a good point here, SyCarl. The issue, however, is just how did John’s writings end up in the Bible? How do we know that John’s (and, by extension, all of other writers’ works) are Divinely Inspired? To claim, as you seem to be doing, that they are becasue they are in the Bible, really begs the question. And, this presents the next logical challenge - where in the Bible does it say only the Bible has the answers? Scripture is surely, “…profitiable for instruction and correction…” but, this statement by Paul is not limited to only Scripture.

Paul tells Timothy that the sacred writings are able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation and confirms that all Scripture is inspired by God. It is said Paul would be speaking of the Old Testament. Even so, he says that they are able to lead us to salvation. How much more when we have the entire Bible? However, Paul’s writing was inspired by God. There is no reason to believe that the Apostles would not know their writings would be considered as Scripture. In fact 2 Peter clearly tells us that Paul’s letters are Scripture.

Indeed, all Scripture is inspired by God - but, how do we know what is Scripture and what was merely an inspirational writing, or a secular history, or (especially true with the so-called Gnostic gospels) deliberate attempts to confuse the early Christinans. Today, we have th assurance that when we read from the Bible we are reading the inspired Word of God - and we have had that same assurance since 400AD. This assurance, however, does not come form the Bible, but rather from the Catholic Church.

If we hold the Bible as inspired, and God did not ‘write’ it and deliver it in the same way He wrote the Ten Commandments and gave the tablets to Moses - we have to look to the group responsible for the Canon. It was the Catholic Church that determined the Canon - and it did so under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To argue against this would imply that the Bible is just a collection of books - but, obviously subject to error since it was written by men and how do we really ‘know’ there is not error here? If we claim that the Bible is free of error then the Catholic Church was obviously free of doctrinal error when it compiled these books and formed the Canon. There is no scripture that says that this freedom from doctrinal error was ever taken away from the Catholic Church. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can only conclude that the Catholic Church, from its founding on Peter (Matt 16) to this very day, is free from doctrinal error.

God bless

 

[moondweller]

OK…Exegetically and hermeneutically speaking, please answer the following question, even if you don’t think that it is SS related:

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into the one truth regarding John 6 (Eucharist)? Are they both right or just one of them? If just one of them then how do we determine which one is right and which one is wrong? Please, just answer the question which SS cannot answer; SS needs an outside arbitrator, evaluator!!! Help me find that arbitrator/evaluator that can do what sola scriptura cannot?

That would hijack this thread. The issue here is Sola Scriptura, not an exegetical study of John chapter six.

MD, the following question is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue:

If the CC leadership (any church leadership for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for trustworthy/accurate edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what, in the end, arbitrates, evaluates and determines whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect???

Based on the following example found in Scripture, you tell me:Acts 17:10-12 "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,* for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures** daily {to see} whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men*."And on whom does Paul put the responsibility?Gal. 1:1-9 "To the churches of Galatia…I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Iome,

i think you have hit the nail squarely on the head…

Sola scriptura can’t never be depended.The Jews who uses the few books of the old
testament can also declare Sola Torah for the same thing was spoken in the law of Moses.

Before the Bible ,there was the church and is today.Before the invention of the printing press God is known through Oral and Holy Traditions.They have to rely in the preaching of the early apostles .How can the protestants accept the whole testament while rejecting the Authority of the Catholic Church that gave it to them in the first place?

The whole new Catholic New Testaments belongs to the Catholic Church!

Actually, Iome, since the Catholic Church reviewed and approved the writings that were placed in the Old Testament, I would say that the Bible - not just the New Testament, belongs to the Catholic Church

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Moondweller,

Actually, I do not see it that way at all…

That would hijack this thread. The issue here is Sola Scriptura, not an exegetical study of John chapter six.

SS - without a practical example - quickly turns into a discussion on the ‘meaning of meaning’ or some ‘gal’ called ‘Norma Norm’. I say this because, if SS had any practical application, then the protestants who claim this theory would be united in scripture teaching one thing. Here we have a practical example as clealry identified in John 6 - and protestants are all over the palce when it comes to the simple question of just what does it mean. Seriously, one can’t aruge that the boat is fine while bailing water to keep it upright! One can’t argue that SS is fine - but, there is all kinds of teaching that simply debunk the concept. It would be more logical to say, “Scripture is what I think it is … nothing more and nothig less - at least for today!”

Based on the following example found in Scripture, you tell me:Acts 17:10-12 “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica,* for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures*** daily {to see} whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.”

And just what scripture do you think these Jews in Berea were examining? Certianly not anything we would consider from the New Testament! Paul and Silas were identifying the fortelling of the Messiah and how He would be rejected and put to deaht - but, not abandoned by God. God had to point this out to these Berea Jews because their eyes had not been opened to the meaning of Christ in the Word of God.

And on whom does Paul put the responsibility?Gal. 1:1-9 “To the churches of Galatia…I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Are you using the term ‘gospel’ to mean a written document as opposed to a spoke message. My understanding of Paul’s concern for the people in Galatia was that false preachers had come upon these people and were teaching false doctrine. You may say that this was oral heresy - as opposed to written heresy.

The medium used (oral vs written) is not the issue with Paul in this letter - rather that the message of Christ having come to save sinners through His Passion and Cross and Resurrection was being distorted by these preachers. Paul’s mission was to set the Galatians back on the staight road to Christ.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bengoshi,

I think you have really missed an important point…

Oh, and let us not forget that hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, only documented and first-hand testimonies.

The first work of the New Testament was written about the year 60AD - so from approximately 33AD when Christ died - but, told the Apostels to preach and baptize (but, not write!) until 60AD - what is it, do you think was happening to the Church to cause it go grow? It was the preaching (oral tradition) of the Apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Bible, being documented first-hand testimonies, are admissible and may be given credence, whereas, those passed on orally (tradition), cannot.

Don’t get too carried away with this ‘documentation’… The Gnostics were busy ‘documenting’ works to confuse the young Catholic Church. All kinds of things were written that were examined by the Catholic Church and then in about 400AD the Catholic Church produced the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Prior to this, there was no assurance that what was in print was in fact the Inspired World of God. It was the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that gave you the Bible and that the founders of your religion shortened to fit their needs. My suggestion would be to try the ‘unabridged’ version…

Now, if you would not mind explaining something to me… I notice that you claim ‘Reformed Evangelical’ as your religion. Would you kindly explain the difference in how SS is view between Reformed Evangelical and Evangelical? Thanks in advance

God bless

 

[joe370]

Hey MD…

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
OK…Exegetically and hermeneutically speaking, please answer the following question, even if you don’t think that it is SS related:

MD, my niece’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach that John 6 is to be interpreted symbolically; Aj’s church leaders of the Lutheran church teach just the opposite; are both these church leaders being guided into the one truth regarding John 6 (Eucharist)? Are they both right or just one of them? If just one of them then how do we determine which one is right and which one is wrong? Please, just answer the question which SS cannot answer; SS needs an outside arbitrator, evaluator!!! Help me find that arbitrator/evaluator that can do what sola scriptura cannot?
That would hijack this thread. The issue here is Sola Scriptura, not an exegetical study of John chapter six.

Nobody here will care if we digress for a moment. Please, just answer the question!

MD, the following question is a hermeneutical/exegetical issue:

If the CC leadership (any church leadership for that matter) - MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, for trustworthy/accurate edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what, in the end, arbitrates, evaluates and determines whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect???
Based on the following example found in Scripture, you tell me:

Acts 17:10-12 "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily {to see} whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men."

Received the word from Paul with great eagerness, but the word cannot arbitrate, evaluate or determine anything: Paul did.

Searched the OT scriptures? Agreed! Even if we are to understand the “scriptures” to mean the 27 books of the NT, these 27 books can evaluate nothing, determine nothing, arbitrate nothing, and resolve nothing!!!

And on whom does Paul put the responsibility?

Gal. 1:1-9 "To the churches of Galatia....I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

We have preached, implies teachers (arbitrators/evaluators) - and Paul says that there are other preachers, preaching to them a gospel contrary to what they received from him and his companions, and they therefore arbitrate, evaluate and determined that these people were to be accursed for preaching a different gospel. The bible, in this case, determined nothing, evaluated nothing, regarding doctrinal truth. Paul put the responsibility square on the shoulders of himself and his fellow teachers/preachers:

*“As we have said before, so I say again now…”
*
In this case people/leaders/teachers, as opposed to SS, arbitrated, evaluated, determined and resolved the matter at hand! This does not answer my question. Sophism never resolves anything. Please just answer the question??? It is related to Sola scriptura if in fact you believe that SS is to be the Christians final authority regarding the correct/incorrect interpretation of scripture, regarding doctrinal truth, regarding faith and morals. If you do not believe that the bible is the Christians final authority, then who or what has the final authority, in the end??? I am just trying to see things from ostensibly, greener pastures, but you won’t help me out. As Austin Powers would say: throw me a friggin bone. LOL…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

I thought you did a great job with this post! But, I do have a quesiton for you…

Hey MD…

Received the word from Paul with great eagerness, but the word cannot arbitrate, evaluate or determine anything: Paul did.

Searched the OT scriptures? Agreed! Even if we are to understand the “scriptures” to mean the 27 books of the NT, these 27 books can evaluate nothing, determine nothing, arbitrate nothing, and resolve nothing!!!

Do you think that **if ** scripture could evaluate, determine and/or arbitrate anything … that there would be 20,000+ protestant religions all waving the SS banner and all doctrinally at cross purposes on doctrine?

I really do not think there would be this division over SS if these various groups were focused on the Christ who appointed Peter as the foundation for the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church!) Now… maybe I am biased on this point … but, as a practical matter it makes no sense to say Scripture alone rules - and then when they find a verse or series of verses that they don’t agree with - (e.g., John 6 [the Eucharist], John 20 [Confession]) they find some other ‘rule’ to go along with their human traditiions.

Have a great day.

 

[SyCarl]

Hey MD…
Received the word from Paul with great eagerness, but the word cannot arbitrate, evaluate or determine anything: Paul did.

Searched the OT scriptures? Agreed! Even if we are to understand the “scriptures” to mean the 27 books of the NT, these 27 books can evaluate nothing, determine nothing, arbitrate nothing, and resolve nothing!!!

Now the Catholic Church says it has the power to arbitrate. I disagree. Who is to arbitrate between us? The authority of the Catholic Church depends on its interpretation of Scripture or because it says the Tradition, that cannot be verified except on its own say so, gives it the authority.

In order to recognize that the Catholic Church has any authority, you must first agree with its interpretation of how it gets that authority. You must exercise your own self interpretation before the Catholic Church can have any authority.

 

[joe370]

Now the Catholic Church says it has the power to arbitrate. I disagree. Who is to arbitrate between us? The authority of the Catholic Church depends on its interpretation of Scripture or because it says the Tradition, that cannot be verified except on its own say so, gives it the authority.

In order to recognize that the Catholic Church has any authority, you must first agree with its interpretation of how it gets that authority. You must exercise your own self interpretation before the Catholic Church can have any authority.

Hey Carl, maybe you can help me out. In order to recognize that a Church, any church, regardless of affiliation, has any authority to teach, evaluate or arbitrate, you and I must first agree with each church’s interpretation or means by which each church received their authority - right?

You and I must exercise our own self interpretation before any church can rightfully claim to possess any authority - right? That makes you and I (any Christian under said premise) - the final authority on which church has the final authority to teach… the final authority on how that church derived its authority. That seems terribly backwards. Could you elaborate?

Carl, if the CC, (any church for that matter) - any church for that matter, MUST defer to the bible alone as their final authority, (as opposed to church authority) - for edification and doctrinal truth, then who or what determines, in the end, whether or not their interpretation regarding doctrinal truth, is correct or incorrect???

 

[joe370]

Hey Tom…

Do you think that if scripture could evaluate, determine and/or arbitrate anything … that there would be 20,000+ protestant religions all waving the SS banner and all doctrinally at cross purposes on doctrine?

Heck no; I totally agree with you. I am just trying to understand, what didn’t make sense to me as a former Lutheran, but no one will bite. They just say things like: this is a hermeneutic/exegetical issue.

Scripture cannot evaluate, determine and/or arbitrate anything on its own, and I just want MD or Josiah, any non-Catholic, to tell me, in their opinion, who HAS the God given right to evaluate/determine doctrinal truth, and WHY, but again, no takers.

I really do not think there would be this division over SS if these various groups were focused on the Christ who appointed Peter as the foundation for the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Catholic Church!) Now… maybe I am biased on this point … but, as a practical matter it makes no sense to say Scripture alone rules - and then when they find a verse or series of verses that they don’t agree with - (e.g., John 6 [the Eucharist], John 20 [Confession]) they find some other ‘rule’ to go along with their human traditiions.

I totally agree. For example, who or what gave me the final authority to interpret sacred scripture as I see fit? No one!!! That authority was given to just one church, and that is the church all Christians should strive to locate, because Jesus said that He would be with that one church forever and that He would guide His one church into all truth until His return. As a former Lutheran, it occurred to me that all truth, logically speaking, can only be found in one church (in the face of disunity and doctrinal chaos) - because Jesus only founded one church, and for me, that church is the CC, never to impugn the works of any man-made church of course.

 

[Bengoshi]

I totally agree. For example, who or what gave me the final authority to interpret sacred scripture as I see fit? No one!!! That authority was given to just one church, and that is the church all Christians should strive to locate, because Jesus said that He would be with that one church forever and that He would guide His one church into all truth until His return. As a former Lutheran, it occurred to me that all truth, logically speaking, can only be found in one church (in the face of disunity and doctrinal chaos) - because Jesus only founded one church, and for me, that church is the CC, never to impugn the works of any man-made church of course.

Hi there!

We have to make something clear here. The various Protestant/Evangelical denominations all consider themselves belonging to one Church headed by Christ. We are all of the same “religion.” Being in a different denomination is not the same as being in another religion. As the famous maxim goes, “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.” Differences in the minor doctrines are alright. There is a good book on this by Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Ron Rhodes entitled CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. What most Catholics fail to consider is the simple fact that Protestants of different denominations will never call one another non-Christians, except for members of cults. Any person or group which does not hold on to any of the essential doctrines are considered cults, meaning they are of a totally different religion.

I hope this clears up the matter.

 

[Bengoshi]

Hi, Bengoshi,

I think you have really missed an important point…

The oral testimony of the apostles are acceptable in court, being first-hand eyewitness accounts. However, a person orally testifying in court as to what the apostles said cannot do so. His testimony will be inadmissible for being hearsay. So there is the difference.

It’s not really about being written but the main issue is that from where/whom did it come from. Since the Bible contains the written accounts of the apostles themselves, then it is admissible as documentary evidence. You might say, “but we do not have the original manuscripts.” It doesn’t matter. For as long as it can be proven that the copies that we have are faithful reproductions of the originals, then they are also admissible. Scholars are unanimous that the texts that we have today are more than 99% accurate. So it’s really alright.

 

[moondweller]

Hey Carl, maybe you can help me out. In order to recognize that a Church, any church, regardless of affiliation, has any authority to teach, evaluate or arbitrate, you and I must first agree with each church’s interpretation or means by which each church received their authority - right?

Of all the “churches” mentioned in the N.T., Joe, which one does it say is appointed the “authority to teach?” Search out the letter Paul wrote to the church at Rome, did he say it was appointed the “teaching church?”

The Biblical fact is, Joe, there is only one church Christ has been building since Pentecost: the body of Christ, made up of all, individual, true believers, born again, saved and reckoned righteous through faith alone in Him. And within this church there are teachers for the building up (unto maturity) of the body of Christ to attain to the unity of the faith (not to the conformity of a religion, Eph. 4:10-13). No church was ever given “the authority to teach.” Teaching is a gift, a function of some of the members within the church, the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-8). But there is no such thing as a “teaching church.”

You’re always confused because your premise is incorrect.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Of all the “churches” mentioned in the N.T., Joe, which one does it say is appointed the “authority to teach?” Search out the letter Paul wrote to the church at Rome, did he say it was appointed the “teaching church?”

The Biblical fact is, Joe, there is only one church Christ has been building since Pentecost: the body of Christ, made up of all, individual, true believers, born again, saved and reckoned righteous through faith alone in Him. And within this church there are teachers for the building up (unto maturity) of the body of Christ to attain to the unity of the faith (not to the conformity of a religion, Eph. 4:10-13). No church was ever given “the authority to teach.” Teaching is a gift, a function of some of the members within the church, the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-8). But there is no such thing as a “teaching church.”

You’re always confused because your premise is incorrect.

More fundamentally, where did Jesus promise that ANY institutional organization is or every would be INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, EXEMPT from accountablity and norming?

In fact, where did Jesus promise ANYTHING about ANYONE - individually or collectively - being INFALLIBLE?

Over and over and over, God warns us about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Where did He exempt The Catholic Church from that?

The entire rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church is the point the Catholics here are trying to make (in so doing, being good Catholic apologists): The Catholic Church alone is exempt from accountability and thus from norming, and whatever it says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” To justify self exempting self from the whole question of the truthfulness of what self teaches, replacing that simply with docilic acceptance of such.

IMHO, Joe seems to be confusing authority with infalliblity/unaccountability. They are entirely unrelated. I realize Joe (as a good Catholic) thinks that Jesus only authorized The Catholic Church to teach (btw, there’s ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever authorized The Catholic Church to do ANYTHING) - and thus he is not authorized to teach and should not be doing so here. But my puzzle over his position is that authority = infalliblity/ unaccountability. Nowhere is this true. I have authority to do my job, but I can assure you no one regards me as infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever I say God says, and it’s all to be accepted “with docility.” President Obama has GREAT authority, yet is Joe arguing that THEREFORE President Obama is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever he says Jesus says, and it’s all to be accepted with docility? I doubt it. I think he rejects the very argument he’s trying so hard to defend. The Christian PEOPLE who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church certainly have authority to teach. As do Christians who may or may not be registered in congregations that may or may not be legally affiliated with other denominations. But such authority does NOT mean they are unaccountable. Read Revelation 2:2. Read all the warnings about false teachers - such warnings would be absurd on God’s part if teachers were incapable of being false.

.

 

[moondweller]

More fundamentally, where did Jesus promise that ANY institutional organization is or every would be INFALLIBLE, INCAPABLE of error, EXEMPT from accountablity and norming?

In fact, where did Jesus promise ANYTHING about ANYONE - individually or collectively - being INFALLIBLE?

Over and over and over, God warns us about false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Where did He exempt The Catholic Church from that?

The entire rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church is the point the Catholics here are trying to make (in so doing, being good Catholic apologists): The Catholic Church alone is exempt from accountability and thus from norming, and whatever it says is simply to be accepted “with docility.” To justify self exempting self from the whole question of the truthfulness of what self teaches, replacing that simply with docilic acceptance of such.

IMHO, Joe seems to be confusing authority with infalliblity/unaccountability. They are entirely unrelated. I realize Joe (as a good Catholic) thinks that Jesus only authorized The Catholic Church to teach (btw, there’s ZERO substantiation that Jesus ever authorized The Catholic Church to do ANYTHING) - and thus he is not authorized to teach and should not be doing so here. But my puzzle over his position is that authority = infalliblity/ unaccountability. Nowhere is this true. I have authority to do my job, but I can assure you no one regards me as infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever I say God says, and it’s all to be accepted “with docility.” President Obama has GREAT authority, yet is Joe arguing that THEREFORE President Obama is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable, whatever he says Jesus says, and it’s all to be accepted with docility? I doubt it. I think he rejects the very argument he’s trying so hard to defend. The Christian PEOPLE who happen to be registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church certainly have authority to teach. As do Christians who may or may not be registered in congregations that may or may not be legally affiliated with other denominations. But such authority does NOT mean they are unaccountable. Read Revelation 2:2. Read all the warnings about false teachers - such warnings would be absurd on God’s part if teachers were incapable of being false.

Absolutely! This is the fundamental issue which Joe always evades.