Defense of Sola Scriptura

[joe370]

Third day, get ready for one heck of a roller coaster ride with Josiah, that will always lead back to:

*“The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone from that question - and the accountability and norming it would suggest. Instead, it lays aside that question by itself exclusively insisting rather that itself exclusively just be accepted “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87 for starters.” *

I had to get off the ride; it was making me terribly dizzy.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Third day, get ready for one heck of a roller coaster ride with Josiah, that will always lead back to:

*“The Catholic Church alone exempts The Catholic Church alone from that question - and the accountability and norming it would suggest. Instead, it lays aside that question by itself exclusively insisting rather that itself exclusively just be accepted “with docility.” Read your Catechism # 87 for starters.” *

I had to get off the ride; it was making me terribly dizzy.

Me, too! It’s ONE reason I got off the ride - and left The Catholic Church.

.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, yeah, its me again brother, I am back. lol

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Josiah

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?

I’ll take one more stab at it. The CC is comprised of all sinful, fallible teachers/people. The apostles were all sinful, fallible teachers/people. The apostles, including Luke and Mark, (all fallible people/teachers) - taught and wrote infallibly thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit. The 4th century CC, comprised of all fallible people, infallibly collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the infallible word of God. There were some books, such as Hebrews, Revelations, James, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John that were considered questionable, and some books that didn’t make the cut that were considered part of the canon, at least until the CC arbitrated and settled the matter! This was all done through the perpetual guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit, forever working from within Jesus’ church. If the Infallible holy spirit is the driving force behind the church instituted by Jesus Christ, as opposed to a mere man (which is the case in every PC) - and the HS is INCAPABLE of error, then the fallible teachers that comprise the CC are incapable of teaching erroneously, if in fact the CC is the church of Matthew 16. If the CC is not the church of the NT, then I will most definitely say:** I am wrong!!! If I am wrong, then help me find the church (not a denomination) - of Matthew 16, the church of John 16:13??? **That is the church (comprised of people/teachers) - that is forever protected from their very fallible nature, and the church to which I want to belong. The people/teachers of the CC are not EXEMPT from accountability. The Holy spirit forever guiding Jesus’ church and safeguarding doctrinal truth, IS exempted from accountability. The CC leaders are not exempt, from what you call norming. Just as the word infallible is not in the bible, the word norming is not in the bible. Josiah, more fundamentally, where did Jesus promise that ANY institutional organization was/is to employ the holy bible as the Christians final norm? Does the bible tell us that the holy spirit will guide the “true believer” via norming? By your own admission, the bible as the Christians final norm can arbitrate, evaluate, determine and interpret NOTHING. How then, is a Christian (regardless of church affiliation) - to discover doctrinal truth free of error (in other words infallible)??? Help me decide, using the bible as my final norm, whether or not my sister is right about her symbolical interpretation of the Eucharist, or you are right? Yes, I am aware that this is a hermeneutical/exegetical question, but a very important one, nonetheless. Let’s put norming into action and see what happens?

BTW, the CC uses both the authority of the sacred scripture and sacred tradition to arbitrate and evaluate doctrinal truth, just as she did in the 4th century. Nothing has changed if in fact the holy spirit is still guiding the CC. If the HS left the CC, then I will say, unequivocally, that you are right!

You believe in the Trinity because the CC defined it years after the apostles lived, and the apostles made no mention of the Trinitarian doctrine, and many denied that the Trinitarian doctrine, that developed in the fourth century was based on Christian ideas, and held instead that it was a deviation from Early Christian teaching on the nature of God or even that it was borrowed from a pre-Christian conception of a divine trinity held by Plato. How do you know that the CC got it right and these other Christian movements from within the CC were in fact wrong?

continued…

 

[joe370]

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?

Covered it already, however that is an interesting thought. Based on your reasoning, false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray could in fact be found in every church, regardless of denomination, including the CC, rendering doctrinal truth unrecognizable. Surely the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the HS, the spirit of truth, into all truth, can be trusted, doctrinally speaking, in spite of the false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that try to lead many astray, as was the case in the early Catholic church in the east, where heresy reared its ugly head? If not, then these false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, could very well be responsible for the Trinitarian dogma, rendering its veracity uncertain right or wrong?

The

entire rejection of Sola Scriptura by The Catholic Church…

Josiah use SS (scripture alone) - to evaluate, determine and define doctrinal truth regarding the Eucharist? Once you do that for me (if you do that) - I guarantee you that I can find brother or sister in Christ, belong to one of the PC’s who use also SS to do the very same thing, and that brother or sister in Christ will adamantly disagree with your interpretation/evaluation. Who is right; who is wrong, and more importantly, who or what has the God given authority to arbitrate and settle the matter, once and for all. I say,that it is the church (not a denomination) - of Matthew 16. One of the churches/assembly of believers (not a denomination) - that comprise the holy catholic (small c) - church must be the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, or, is the one (in faith only) - holy catholic (again, small c) - church forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, just different doctrinal truths? Perhaps faith that Jesus is our savior is all that matters, and doctrinal unity is inconsequential???

I totally believe that the one, holy catholic (again, small c) - church is one and united when it comes to faith in Jesus Christ. We are all one in faith, but not one in doctrine.

 

[joe370]

Me, too! It’s ONE reason I got off the ride - and left The Catholic Church…

**Hey, you got to follow your mind soul and heart and if your mind soul and heart are telling that the CC is not for you, who the heck am I to say otherwise! Josiah, I wasn’t being critical, NEVER, just being honest. I really wanted, still want to see things and understand those things from your perspective, but I am just not getting it, regarding sola scriptura and norming as the Christians final authority via hermeneutics/exegetics.

What I do get is your view of the CC, so you don’t have to mention that again; really, I get it. I’ve got my SS hat on and am ready to dig in and try again, if we can leave the CC out of it and simply concentrate on the defense of SS, when you get the chance!!!**

Peace brother…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I reckon in the end everything has to be abandoned - our sola scriptura and our theological understanding. Luke 10:4, “Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes; and salute no man by the way.”
Sola Scriptura which can hinder relationship with our neighbour. Our theological understanding which can hinder relationship with God.

 

[Bengoshi]

I totally agree! What about the various Protestant/Evangelical denominations that don’t exist now but will in the future; will they too be considered part of the one church headed by Christ?

 

[ufamtobie]

[Q

UOTE=JonNC;6205112]

And it is always good to see you, my friend.

Jon,

Thanks, Yeah, I take time off for days or longer at a time from CAF and every time I check back in you are hear at CAF lol Hmmmm I think Jesus Christ, is telling you something…Get My Point,

Ufamtobie

 

[PRmerger]

Essential doctrines include** (I don’t mention them all): **Trinity, Salvation by Grace through Faith, Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, Christ’s Death and Ressurrection, etc.

I hope this answers your questions.

I am curious about your entire list of essential doctrines. Where are they listed? And how do you know what’s an essential doctrine?

 

[Bengoshi]

I am curious about your entire list of essential doctrines. Where are they listed? And how do you know what’s an essential doctrine?

The title of the book which discusses it is CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. The authors presented 16 essential doctrines, to wit:

1. God’s Unity
2. God’s Tri-unity
3. Christ’s Deity
4. Christ’s Humanity
5. Human Depravity
6. Christ’s Virgin Birth
7. Christ’s Sinlessness
8. Christ’s Atoning Death
9. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
10. The Necessity of Grace
11. The Necessity of Faith
12. The Bodily Ascension of Christ
13. Christ’s Priestly Intercession
14. Christ’s Bodily Second Coming
15. The Inspiration of Scripture
16. The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

The 12 non-essentials they listed and discussed are the following:

1. The Procession of the Holy Spirit
2. The Forms of Church Government
3. Grace, Faith and Works
4. The Extent of Salvation
5. The Candidate, Mode, and Efficacy of Baptism
6. The Nature and Function of Communion
7. The Nature of Sanctification
8. The Use of Musical Instruments in Worship
9. The Nature of Spiritual Gifts
10. The Day of Worship
11. The Order of Second Coming Events
12. The Role of Women

The presentation is good. It’s alright to hold on to and defend your personal stand on any of the non-essentials, but we as Christians should not go on spewing “heretic” and anathemas to others who hold a view different from ours. That is simply the point the authors are trying to make. By the way, you may have a different definition of the terms listed above than the the authors, so it’s really better to read the book first before bashing it. It’s not expensive at all. The introductory part can be read here:

amazon.com/Conviction-Without-Compromise-Standing-Christian/dp/0736922202

 

[PRmerger]

The title of the book which discusses it is CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. The authors presented 16 essential doctrines, to wit:

1. God’s Unity
2. God’s Tri-unity
3. Christ’s Deity
4. Christ’s Humanity
5. Human Depravity
6. Christ’s Virgin Birth
7. Christ’s Sinlessness
8. Christ’s Atoning Death
9. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
10. The Necessity of Grace
11. The Necessity of Faith
12. The Bodily Ascension of Christ
13. Christ’s Priestly Intercession
14. Christ’s Bodily Second Coming
15. The Inspiration of Scripture
16. The Literal Interpretation of Scripture

How do they know these are the essential doctrines listed in Scripture?

In other words, what verses tell them that “Christ’s Priestly Intercession” is an essential but that the “day of worship” is secondary?

 

[PRmerger]

The title of the book which discusses it is CONVICTION WITHOUT COMPROMISE. The authors presented 16 essential doctrines, to wit:

What credentials do these authors have? Are they claiming infalliblity? If not, then why do you trust their declaration? Aren’t they just another group of men with no authority over you?

 

[SnakeMauler]

Well considering that all these Sola Scriptura people are Protestants and whatnot, they’re actually following a Bible that Martin Luther edited and whatnot to fit his personal theology? Maybe that only applies to Lutherans. Not to mention the fact that people who interpret the bible “literally” might actually be interpreting it wrong because the original author of the scripture was actually trying to convey something that was to be interpreted metamorphically, therefore there isnt’ really a way to translate the entire Bible literally, although some things like “love one another as I have loved you” is pretty straightforward (though I can’t even say this, because according to some of the “Congregationalists” in my area who are going for all this gay marriage stuff “love one another” means engage in extramarital homosexual relations ) so yeah.

 

[Bengoshi]

What credentials do these authors have? Are they claiming infalliblity? If not, then why do you trust their declaration? Aren’t they just another group of men with no authority over you?

Didn’t I just tell you to please read at least the introductory part found at the link I posted before commenting? They explain it there why they are considered essential doctrines. Please read it first then comment on it so that we can have a more intelligent discussion here. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t I just tell you to please read at least the introductory part found at the link I posted before commenting? They explain it there why they are considered essential doctrines. Please read it first then comment on it so that we can have a more intelligent discussion here. Thank you.

My question remains, Bengoshi: how does this group of fallible men determine what’s essential?

As there is no list in Scripture, then they are simply using their fallible, non-authoritative tradition to claim something is “connected with our salvation” and therefore “essential”.

[SIGN1]ALL Scripture is “connected with our salvation”[/SIGN1]

Who are they to declare that Malachi 1:11 is not essential? Does Scripture say that? If not, then they (and YOU!) believe in a man-made, extra-biblical tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t I just tell you to please read at least the introductory part found at the link I posted before commenting? They explain it there why they are considered essential doctrines. Please read it first then comment on it so that we can have a more intelligent discussion here. Thank you.

It is interesting that you subscribe to this extra-biblical tradition, Bengoshi.

While I’ve not read any of your other posts in other threads, I would venture to say that you object to Catholic “extra-biblical traditions”–am I correct in this?

 

[lome]

Hi, Iome,

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

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

Yes, all Christendom owed the Catholic Church,the holy Spirit inspired men and women,
The early Fathers,the apostles for the entire bible that we have today.

Luther’s Sola Scriptura,with out the invention of the printing press is dead.!
Not all of the apostles wrote a book,some of them started spreading the word of God by mouth and Holy Traditions with the capital “T”.
Those early Christians needed the explanations ,further the interpretations of the Holy Scriptures from which our Lord Jesus entrusted to this same people the apostles headed by Peter. (In Aramaic to mean only one thing that Peter will be this rock in which he will build his Church)

Our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic which has no known means of making such a distinction between feminine petras and masculine petros in Greek.

Our Lord identifies himself as the builder and the rock in which he builds is most naturally
understood as someone other than Jesus himself.

 

[PRmerger]

Didn’t I just tell you to please read at least the introductory part found at the link I posted before commenting? They explain it there why they are considered essential doctrines. Please read it first then comment on it so that we can have a more intelligent discussion here. Thank you.

I’d like to know why they didn’t put on the list: the necessity of Repentance.

Can we be saved without repentance?

 

[Bengoshi]

My question remains, Bengoshi: how does this group of fallible men determine what’s essential?

As there is no list in Scripture, then they are simply using their fallible, non-authoritative tradition to claim something is “connected with our salvation” and therefore “essential”.

[SIGN1]ALL Scripture is “connected with our salvation”[/SIGN1]

Who are they to declare that Malachi 1:11 is not essential? Does Scripture say that? If not, then they (and YOU!) believe in a man-made, extra-biblical tradition.

Hi there!

No, I do not hold on to the view of sola scriptura as solo scriptura. The original meaning of sola scriptura is actually prima scriptura. There is nothing wrong with observing tradition or man-made (especially scholarly) assertions, provided that they do not contradict Scripture. My view is just the same with regard to RC “Tradition.”