Defense of Sola Scriptura

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hi, Garysibio,

You guys are obviously more familiar with this topic then I am.

So tell me, how is SS so different in different groups? Can you give me an example of how a particular topic plays out in one chruch as opposed to another?

God bless,

The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin but we cannot stop with such simple answers Christian groups are divided on:

• When?
• Why?
• What?
• How?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

“Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children” (Martin Luther) His reading of the Bible was selective.

 

[JonNC]

Hi, JonNC,

Again, thank you for the links. God bless your activities in Christ.

Same to you, Tom.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Some questions for any SS advocate:

I was talking to my sister about this thread, and even asked her to join, and add her 2 cents. She told me: Joe for the last time, the bible is the Christians only means to truth, and all churches are prone to err, and therefore cannot compare to the inerrant word of God, including my church. I asked her about the conflicting truths found outside the CC, and she simply answered my question with a question, which was not surprising: “what makes you think truth can be found in the RCC?” I said: you didn’t answer my question, to which she said:

**“The bible can be trusted; people cannot!!!” **

MD, Josiah (any non-Catholic) - do you agree with her? If she is right, then why would I believe that the bible (written by fallible, sinful people and bound and codified by untrustworthy, fallible, sinful people, hundreds of years later) - is the Christians only means to truth, considering the fact that people cannot be trusted, including the untrustworthy, sinful, fallible apostles? Please don’t tell me that the holy spirit guided the Apostles to write the books of the bible and then bind and finally codify the bible, prior to their demise, at which point the Holy spirit drew away from Jesus’ church; that is not biblically accurate or historically accurate! How can truth be discerned, when people are the discerner’s? Everyone here knows what I think, but what I think is considered untrustworthy, for I am a person, and my trust lies in the church of Matthew 16, comprised of untrustworthy people, but, guided by the Trustworthy Holy Spirit, in perpetuity.

Is there a chance that there could be a difference between an apostate corrupt church, (CC, as many insist) - doctrinally speaking or otherwise, to be totally discarded, vs a corrupt church in practice, at certain times, in the history of the CC, but doctrinally speaking, spot on, thanks the the perpetual guidance of the HS ? In other words: is it possible that the CC (if the CC is the church of Matthew 16) - can in fact possess the correct doctrine, taught by Jesus (thanks to the ineffable guidance of the HS) - and still have hypocrites and wolves in sheep’s clothing, residing in the CC, just as there can be the “holiest” of people in one of the PC’s, with a warped sense of doctrinal truth, through no fault of there own of course. I know what you are thinking.

Joe, certainly some of the people belonging to the CC can also be the “holiest” of people, with a warped sense of doctrinal truth, as well, through no fault of there own.

Well, I say: Where does that leave us, as catholics and protestants, doctrinally speaking, regarding what protestants call, the essential doctrines?

If your reply is, as was my sisters: I cannot see a church devoid of either of the two, for the simple fact that all of these churches are run by men, as opposed to God. Truth regarding God’s teachings, can only be found in the bible, for the bible is comprised of the very words of God. Of course I didn’t get into the incongruity of that statement with her, for obvious reasons. She followed it up with: if there is a church that possess the correct doctrine, taught by Jesus (thanks to the ineffable guidance of the HS, in perpetuity) - regardless of the hypocrites, and wolves in sheep’s clothing therein, then produce the evidence. Produce the evidence that your church is Gods church? Joe, that is impossible to do, because God must confirm this fact, and he has not, to which I said: prove to me (produce the evidence) - that the holy bible, written by fallible, sinners, guided by the holy spirit, is God’s bible? I then said: Anne, that is impossible to do, because God must confirm this fact first, (without the assistance of people, who of course, by your own admission, cannot be trusted) - and God has not - unless of course you believe either:

A) God handed each and every Christian, the word of God, personally, or:

B) God gave the world a church, personally, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD3 33, and empowered His church, through the perpetual guidance of the HS
(people/teachers, including hypocrites, and wolves in sheep’s clothing, due to the sin of man and the never ending onslaught of the devil) - and personally told His established church to go and make disciples of all nations, (thanks to the fact that they received power when the Holy Spirit came upon them, on Pentecost - Acts 1 and 2) - and to be His witnesses, starting in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and eventually to the ends of the earth, and to baptize everyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and to teach everyone to obey everything that I (Jesus) - commanded you (His church) - again in perpetuity, for Jesus said:

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

To which she said: You just will never get it Joe; come to my church and you will finally understand, at which point I simply sighed in disbelief, for she just said that only the bible can be trusted; people on the other hand, cannot be trusted, and certainly that includes her church leaders, if it includes my church leaders

SS advocates, help me get it…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Some questions for any SS advocate:

**“The bible can be trusted; people cannot!!!” **

MD, Josiah (any non-Catholic) - do you agree with her?

I agree with this:

1. Truth matters. IMHO, never more than in matters of my eternal soul.
2. Thus teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach. This applies to ALL teachers of such, The Catholic Church no less than any other.
3. My study of life, of the cults, of religions, of the Fall in Genesis, of Christian history, tells me your sister is correct: A teacher CAN be wrong. And the self same teacher exclusively insisting that the self-same teacher is exclusively INCAPABLE of wrong doesn’t change that reality. In fact, from what I can tell, such a claim of self for self actually INCREASES the likelihood of being wrong. Especially my study of the cults revealed this to me.
4. While embracing Scripture as God’s words inscripturated (and thus infallible) involves an act of faith, such is historical and ecumenical (not self proclaiming self as infallible/unaccountable) and such is not self. It gives us a rule/canon that is OUTSIDE, ABOVE, BEYOND all teachers among us. Knowable by all and alterable by none. Embraced by all as reliable for this purpose (in fact, most of us regard it as inerrant). GOD should be the final authority among Christians, and here (and here alone) do we all agree is His knowable, objective inscripturated words.

If she is right, then why would I believe that the bible (written by fallible, sinful people?

1. Actually, Protestants agree with The Catholic Church on this point. Here’s how it is articulated in The Handbook of The Catholic Faith (page 136), “The Bible is the very word of God and no greater credence can exist. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.” We agree. Thus, we have a rule OUTSIDE and BEYOND all of us that we all agree is authoritative and thus normative.
2. While we all agree that God is infallible and thus His inscriputrated words are, we don’t all agree that a teacher among us is if the self-same teacher so declares for himself exclusively. And while this extreme reliablity point is powerful, it’s actually not necessary for it to be a sound rule/canon. In America, we embrace the Rule of Law as our rule/canon. And yet not a single one of the 303,000,000 Americans believe our law is inerrant or the inscripturated words of God. We simply believe that self alone should not proclaim self alone to be unaccountable for what he does/says, or that it is best for self to proclaim self exclusively as incapable of wrong.

at which point the Holy spirit drew away from Jesus’ church; that is not biblically accurate or historically accurate!

Protestants do NOT believe that God EVER “withdrew” from us. What we are apt to not embrace is that God promised to be “with” The Catholic Church (at all, but especially exclusively) since we note that God never promised The Catholic Church anything. God IS with us! God DOES lead us! But it’s absurd to argue (as some Catholics do) that because God leads us, ergo The Catholic Church exclusively MUST therefore infallibly follow. It’s not the LEADING we disagree with, it’s self alone proclaiming that self alone INFALLIBLY follows.

In other words: is it possible that the CC .

1. The angel told Our Mother, “All things are POSSIBLE with God.” But that doesn’t mean all things are true. Are all the claims of the LDS POSSIBLE? Yes, I think it heresy to say otherwise based on what the Angel revealed to Our Lady. But does THAT means ergo it’s a dogmatic fact? I hope you see the difference. Your (rather typical Catholic) apologetic of “It’s theoretically POSSIBLE, ergo it is a dogmatic fact” just doesn’t “work” for noncatholics (just as it doesn’t for Catholics when Mormons use it).
2. Let’s say all the remarkable claims of self alone for self alone are true (or the sake of the discussion) and God established The Catholic Church. The gigantic, gold-metal worthy leap of “ERGO, it must be infallible, unaccoutable, exempt from norming, whatever it alone says must just be accepted with docility” is absurd. Did God “establish” Adam and Eve and the Garden? Did God teach and lead Adam and Eve? Inerrantly? Did THAT mandate the ergo Adam and Eve MUST infallibly follow? And God held them as unaccountable? Did God establish the Hebrew Kingdom in the OT? Did God personally and directly appoint some of the kings? Did God lead it and them inerrantly? Did THAT mandate that ergo the Hebrew Kingdom and all the Hebrew Kings MUST infalliblly follow His lead? That thus it and they could not do otherwise than infallibly follow? That thus it and they were held as unaccountable by God? The premise of “God founded, thus it’s infallible” is not only illogical, irrational but it’s clearly unbiblical.

continues in the next post…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continuing the post above:

Produce the evidence that your church is Gods church? Joe, that is impossible to do

Good point, so maybe that apologetic is irrelevant. But, you see, here’s where it gets interesting because Catholics are so quick to repudiate their own rubric, their own apologetic. When the Mormon says, “Jesus founded the LDS” the Catholic regards that as accountable and asks a very good question, “Where? Where is the substantiation for this?” And yet when the Catholic echos all the claims of The Catholic Church and people ask the VERY SAME good question they ask, we’re looked at as if we just landed from Mars and they don’t have a CLUE what we’re asking about. Friend, the reality is this: The Catholic Church is never so much as even mentioned by God, Jesus or any Apostle. For anything. About anything. Concerning anything. I know it, you know it, all God’s people know it. And the words “infallible” and “unaccountable” don’t appear once in Scripture either. The huge, remarkable, self-serving claims of The Catholic Church are simply those of The Catholic Church. Yes, it can impute them into Scripture by inserting invisible words not there, but then so can The LDS Church or any other.

Either you believe…

A) God handed each and every Christian, the word of God, personally, or:

B) God gave the world a church, personally, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, circa AD3 33, and empowered His church, through the perpetual guidance of the HS
(people/teachers, including hypocrites, and wolves in sheep’s clothing, due to the sin of man and the never ending onslaught of the devil) - and personally told His established church to go and make disciples of all nations, (thanks to the fact that they received power when the Holy Spirit came upon them, on Pentecost - Acts 1 and 2) - and to be His witnesses, starting in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and eventually to the ends of the earth, and to baptize everyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and to teach everyone to obey everything that I (Jesus) - commanded you (His church) - again in perpetuity, for Jesus said:“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I reject both. (And you seem to be evading the issue of accountability!)

God gave His Scripture to US, not just to me or to The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or to Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy.

God never said that ANY teacher is infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming - and CERTAINLY not that the singular, particular Catholic Church exclusively is. What Jesus DID say was to watch out for false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray - and (obviously) He never exempted The Catholic Church from that and never said that a teacher is exempt from this warning of that self same teacher so proclaimed about himself exclusively. And Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church forbids, regarding their teachers as accountable, testing/norming them, arbitrating the issue, and declaring them false.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[moondweller]

JL: I notice you evaded my question at the top again. The last time you evaded that question, by saying, I was evading your questions.

I didn’t evade anything. I said I do stand firm and hold to the traditions that were taught by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15). Certainly not taught “by word of mouth” since those words could only enter the ears of the hearers that were present at the time. But certainly by letter, i.e., those preserved for all subsequent generations in theopneustos (God-breathed), Holy Writ: the N.T. Scriptures.

However if you want a list of doctrines, taught by the Apostles orally, look in the CCC. Those doctrines where originally orally handed down by the Apostles.

Nice try.

JL: You are right the way you have presented oral Tradition is NOT at all what Paul was referring to. Oral Tradition is not passed down by word of mouth nor is it passed down infallibly, it is infallibly discerned by the pope and bishops. They have the gift, the Holy Spirit, of discernment, given in ordination thru apostolic secession. It is discerned in light of scripture and the writings of the fathers, councils, worship, etc…

“Oral Tradition” by definition is supposedly Apostolic teaching not committed to writing and preserved in Holy Writ, but said to be different and taught only orally and passed down infallibly by word of mouth from one generation to the next. Catholics make reference to 2 Thess. 2:15 as proof of the existence of such “oral Tradition.”"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us."Notice the last two words “FROM US.” “From us” does not nor can not mean subjective “discernment” made by “Popes” and “Bishops” in the far future claiming infallibility. “From us” must be confined to the words spoken and written directly by the Apostles. However, only that which was written is called “God-breathed” (theopneustos) and preserved for future generations in Holy Writ. The way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses.

Continued to next Post:

 

[moondweller]

jlhargus:

it is infallibly discerned by the pope and bishops. They have the gift, the Holy Spirit, of discernment, given in ordination thru apostolic secession. It is discerned in light of scripture and the writings of the fathers, councils, worship, etc…

You’re exactly right about Catholic “TRADITION” (not "oral Tradition) being not limited and subject to what was God-breathed and preserved for future generations by the Holy Spirit in written form: the Scriptures; but ultimately what your “Magisterium” infallibly “discerns” to be Divine Truth and passes as Catholic dogma: That which all Catholics, as Catholics, are required to believe. Dogmas which need not have any Scriptural support or historical witness, whatsoever, but passed into the Church as dogma on the basis of mystical “discernment” of men connected to what is claimed to be an “infallible” office. Exampled by Pope Pius XII’s announcement that the “Assumption of Mary” was “contained in the deposit of faith:”“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus; emphasis mine).The new dogma required absolutely no Biblical support and no historical eyewitness (yet Christ Himself deemed it most important that His own bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven be witnessed by men since it is foundational to the true Christian faith, Acts 1:8). Enough Catholics at the time believed it to be true, so it was mystically “discerned” as part of “the deposit of faith.”

In truth, in Catholicism the Bible, though originally written “to” the people, is not a Book “of” the people but a Book of the Catholic Church of which its Magisterium (its teaching office) is held as the Spirit’s primary teaching authority. Father Matthias Premm explained this in his “Dogmatic Theology for the Laity:”"…The teaching office of the Church is more important than the Bible: only an infallible Church can tell us what books belong to Scripture, and only an infallible Church can interpret the true meaning of Sacred Scripture; no one can do this for himself. Thus the Catholic can read only one Bible which is published by the Church. In other words: The immediate and highest rule of faith is the living office of the Church" (emphasis mine)THIS, in a nutshell, defines Catholic TRADITION, which is elevated above and beyond the Scriptures. Vatican I concurs:"…in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one, which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers" (emphasis mine).Interpretation of Scripture is the sole right of the Magisterium, alone. IOW, TRADITION, that which the Church presently believes and practices, determines what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Even Catholic theologians are subject to it and must interpret the Scriptures accordingly.

Consequently such an approach to the study of Scripture only results in the Catholic Church validating itself. No correction is possible, as American Josiah rightly states:"…because it alone insists that it alone CANNOT be wrong in these matters, it and it itself exclusively is INCAPABLE of being wrong, it and it itself alone is infallible in these matters. It itself alone demands that people just accept whatever it and it itself alone says “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.” "I’m right so I’m right so I’m right - so there. Just forget about accountability or norming, forget about examination, and rather just accept whatever I myself alone say."One Catholic on this forum has rightly stated that Catholicism is not a Biblically based faith, but TRADITION based. Even the Scriptures themselves are subject to it. That’s why AJ has often asked in his posts if any of you have ever studied the cults and how they formulate their peculiar “truths.” Cults have no higher authority than themselves, nor accountable to anyone nor anything outside themselves. They too determine their own dogmas.

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;6284131
If I understand you correctly, with an ‘open’ canon, that would mean that if someone found ancient writings in the Holy Land, there would be a concern about seeing if these writings were to be included in the Bible. For example, if a lost epistle of St. Paul would be found it generate an interest in determining if were authentic, and if so, to include it in the NT?,

I would suspect so, but I’m no expert.

“The Baby” would be the church founded by Christ on Peter as recorded in Matt 16.

We do not believe we threw out the Church founded by Christ, but believe we are part of it.
The Lutheran view of the Church is expressed in the Confessions, as well as the desire of the reformers to maintain the teachings of the Church Catholic.

“The Bath Water” would be all of the corruption [sale of indulgences, simony, moral laxity and public scandal] that Luther correctly viewed as not compatable with the mission that Christ had given to His Church.

And the CC is to be given credit for, in many ways, correcting these things. It is noteworthy that it happened after Luther’s death, and some of these things are what the Church demanded Luther recant. But, that is water under the bridge, and should not be issues that divide us.

Luther had a role model in St. Catherine of Sienna (1347-1380) of someone who worked with the Church of Christ to bring it back to the right path. Here is a link: newadvent.org/cathen/03447a.htm And, you know… Luther had it easy … he had only ONE pope to be concerned with!

I’ll check it out. Thanks

Did you mean, “Even now…”? While I do not understand the distinction you are making - if in fact you are saying that SS is being practiced, then there can be no other authority (that would be by definition…) So, if the leaders of the Lutheran church were to say “x” this would have to have some kind of authority significance to those who would be members of the Lutheran church.

No, I meant “how”, because the typical understanding of SS here at CAF is that of the contemporary solo scriptura, which often excludes any writings or teachings that at not explicitly stated in scripture. SS does not exclude Tradition. Lutherans accept, for example the three ecumenical creeds, as they rightly reflect the truth of scripture, though they are not explicitly stated in scripture. In fact, they comprise the first section of the Book of Concord, they are that important.
SS, properly practiced, does not exclude Tradition, but embraces it. As I said before, after nearly 900 posts, this thread comes down to this: for Catholics Tradition is a co-equal of scripture. For Lutherans, Tradition is subject to scripture.

As I see it, SS sets the stage for ‘private interpretation’ and, in so doing enables multiple groups to interpret as they will. So, you have some PC that say, for example, that Baptism is necessary, some saying it is optional and those who claim it is not required.

Lutherans claim no responsbility for what other communions say or teach. In fact, the Lutheran Confessions strongly condemn what the anabaptists wrongly teach about Baptism. Virtually all western n-C Christian communions have no direct or even indirect roots in Lutheranism.

Where there is unity is that all reject the Catholic Church as the Church founded by Christ in Matt 16.

Again, we claim to be part of the Church Catholic founded by Christ. From the Augsburg Confession:
*Nor has anything been here said or adduced to the reproach of any one. 5] Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

and

***Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6. ***

Well, that is why we dialogue … now, cut me a little slack here … after all, this is not “LAF” but CAF, eh?

Exactly, and I know you would cut me slack too.

Again, thank you for the links. God bless your activities in Christ.

Same to you.

Jon

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

moondweller:
).[/indent]Interpretation of Scripture is the sole right of the Magisterium, alone. IOW, TRADITION, that which the Church presently believes and practices, determines what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Even Catholic theologians are subject to it and must interpret the Scriptures accordingly.

Moondweller you appear to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. A person is permitted personal interpretation of Scripture as long as he follows certain exegetical rules:

‘Access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful’ (Dei Verbum, 22)
‘The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learnthe surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures’ (CCC, 133)
The Bible is a Divine Vehicle. If I were to borrow someone’s car there are rules I am expected to follow, for safety and out of respect for the owner.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Joe370 - It’s perhaps not surprising how many now converts originally set upon the task of discrediting the Catholic Church only to be converted themselves, for example read/listen to the story of Scott Hahn.

 

[joe370]

Hey Josiah…

“The bible can be trusted; people cannot!!!”

MD, Josiah (any non-Catholic) - do you agree with her?

I agree with this:

Truth matters. IMHO, never more than in matters of my eternal soul.

Thus teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach. This applies to ALL teachers of such, The Catholic Church no less than any other.

Regarding the CC, I agree! Before I respond, I just want to say again: please don’t tell me that the holy spirit guided the fallible Apostles to write the books of the bible and then bind and finally codify the bible, prior to their demise, at which point the Holy spirit drew away from Jesus’ church; that is not biblically accurate or historically accurate! If the Holy Spirit did in fact draw away from the church of Matthew 16, once the individual books of the NT were written, (but not bound and codified) - then the errant, fallible teachers of the church of Matthew 16, could have altered what was originally, suppose to be the books of the bible – correct? No H.S., no infallible certainty that God is the author of the N.T. – right?

Why can the bible be trusted, considering the fact that “people” wrote it in the first century, and people codified it in the 4th century? I agree with you regarding the fact that all teachers, by admitting that they could be wrong about what they teach, proves that they are being accountable, for no one is perfect, including the fallible, errant teachers of the CC, who eventually codified the bible, In the 4th century, so again, why should I trust that the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God?

You said that you agreed with my sister when she said: the bible is the Christians only means to truth, (error free) - and all churches are prone to err, which includes all fallible, errant teachers of doctrine, so how can truth (which matters) – be accurately discerned, given the fact that all people are accountable and therefore prone to err?

Josiah, if you are right then only God can be trusted to interpreted His word and resolve doctrinal matters, regarding His word – correct?

How did the infallible word of God get from the hands of the fallible Apostles (codified in the 4th century by fallible men, who were not Apostles) - to the hands of the protestant reformers of the 16th century?

 

[moondweller]

moondweller:

Interpretation of Scripture is the sole right of the Magisterium, alone. IOW, TRADITION, that which the Church presently believes and practices, determines what the Scriptures presently teach and mean. Even Catholic theologians are subject to it and must interpret the Scriptures accordingly.

Moondweller you appear to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. A person is permitted personal interpretation of Scripture as long as he follows certain exegetical rules:

And that particular “exegetical rule” is that one’s “personal interpretation” conform to what the Magisterium (“the Church”) presently believes and practices according to “Tradition.” That’s not a true exegesis of the Scriptures.

‘Access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful’ (Dei Verbum, 22)
‘The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learnthe surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures’ (CCC, 133)
The Bible is a Divine Vehicle. If I were to borrow someone’s car there are rules I am expected to follow, for safety and out of respect for the owner.

This is actually a very good analogy from a Catholic viewpoint. The Bible for the Catholic is like a borrowed car. He/she doesn’t actually own it, but is “borrowed” from “the Church.” He/she is given complete “access” to Sacred Scripture but, like the borrowed car, the “owner” sets the rules of use (interpretation).

 

[PRmerger]

This is actually a very good analogy from a Catholic viewpoint. The Bible for the Catholic is like a borrowed car. He/she doesn’t actually own it, but is “borrowed” from “the Church.” He/she is given complete “access” to Sacred Scripture but, like the borrowed car, the “owner” sets the rules of use (interpretation).

Oooooh, I’m going to go with this analogy, MD! I like it!

While the Bible for the CC is like a borrowed car, the Protestant churches are like little Pinewood Derby toy cars, each made according to the whims and creative designs of their daddies.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

And that particular “exegetical rule” is that one’s “personal interpretation” conform to what the Magisterium (“the Church”) presently believes and practices according to “Tradition.” That’s not a true exegesis of the Scriptures.This is actually a very good analogy from a Catholic viewpoint. The Bible for the Catholic is like a borrowed car. He/she doesn’t actually own it, but is “borrowed” from “the Church.” He/she is given complete “access” to Sacred Scripture but, like the borrowed car, the “owner” sets the rules of use (interpretation).

The Interpretation of The Bible in the Church
Pontifical Biblical Commission
March 18, 1994

"This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to understand the sacred books.
…This methodological spectrum of exegetical work has broadened in a way which could not have been envisioned 30 years ago.

…The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office."*

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

• Luke 24:45
• Acts 8:27-40
• 2 Peter 3:16-17

 

[joe370]

Hey MD…

Originally Posted by moondweller View Post
This is actually a very good analogy from a Catholic viewpoint. The Bible for the Catholic is like a borrowed car. He/she doesn’t actually own it, but is “borrowed” from “the Church.” He/she is given complete “access” to Sacred Scripture but, like the borrowed car, the “owner” sets the rules of use (interpretation).

So, the catholic (myself) - really doesn’t own the bible; the catholic merely borrows it from the “church.”

Please identify the “church” (“owner”) - who sets the rules of use (interpretation)? Maybe we are on to something original…

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Hey MD…

So, the catholic (myself) - really doesn’t own the bible; the catholic merely borrows it from the “church.”
Please identify the “church” (“owner”) - who sets the rules of use (interpretation)? Maybe we are on to something original…

God owns the Bible.
The Catholic borrows it. All creation is on loan from God.
The Holy Spirit dictates how the Bible is to be interpreted - 2 Peter 1:20-21

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MD,

Looks like you have an interesting analogy here… Don’t worry, I won’t ‘drive it’ into the ground…

And that particular “exegetical rule” is that one’s “personal interpretation” conform to what the Magisterium (“the Church”) presently believes and practices according to “Tradition.” That’s not a true exegesis of the Scriptures.This is actually a very good analogy from a Catholic viewpoint. The Bible for the Catholic is like a borrowed car. He/she doesn’t actually own it, but is “borrowed” from “the Church.” He/she is given complete “access” to Sacred Scripture but, like the borrowed car, the “owner” sets the rules of use (interpretation).

As you know, “personal interpretation” of scripture is soundly condemned! (2Pet 1:19-21) Let’s look at what the First Pope has to say - and you can read it in your own Bible:

**19
Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20
12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. **

Let’s be logical about this… if Peter is condemning “private interpretation” what other interpretation is left? The answer is the interpretation coming from the Church founded by Jesus Christ on this same Apostle - the Catholic Church that you will find in Matt 16. There were no protestant groups at this time…

But, since protestant groups all claim “private interpretation” is their right - look what the effects are: chaos. There is no doctrinal unity based upon SS which has its foundation in “private interpretation”. Seriously, the only unity is that all protestants agree the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong! Yet all claim they are right - and all of their founders were weak and error prone men… who did not receive the Power of Christ to bind and lose! There really are 20,000+ churches for a reason - they simply can not agree on doctrine. Now, surely this must strike you as a bit odd - is there any other example in the world of 20,000+ groups all claiming to be legitimate ( ‘true church’ status), and all denouncing the others for error (false doctrine)? If ever there was a time to look at a tree based upon the fruit it bears - this is it!

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

But, since protestant groups all claim “private interpretation” is their right - look what the effects are: chaos. There is no doctrinal unity based upon SS which has its foundation in “private interpretation”. Seriously, the only unity is that all protestants agree the Church founded by Christ on Peter is wrong! Yet all claim they are right - and all of their founders were weak and error prone men… who did not receive the Power of Christ to bind and lose! There really are 20,000+ churches for a reason - **they simply can not agree on doctrine. **Now, surely this must strike you as a bit odd - is there any other example in the world of 20,000+ groups all claiming to be legitimate ( ‘true church’ status), and all denouncing the others for error (false doctrine)? If ever there was a time to look at a tree based upon the fruit it bears - this is it!

God bless

Indeed!

And here’s a list (certainly not exhaustive) compiled originally by ProdigalSon of all sorts of things that Christians have differing opinions about–all from reading the very same Scriptures (alright, give or take 7 books!)

Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism–immersion? sprinkling? sacrament? ordinance? adults only? infants only?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
themselves)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[AmericanJosiah]

But, since protestant groups all claim “private interpretation” is their right

Your concern seems to be with self designating self as the interpreter of Scripture. But, my friend, your finger of accusation and warning is pointed in the wrong direction. The only teacher I know of that insists that for self is The Catholic Church. Read your Catechism # 85 and 87. Friend, search all you want, you will find NO OTHER Christian teacher that does what The Catholic Church does. And it goes far beyond that: insisting that self is the INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE sole interpreter. No Protestant teacher is so egotistical and exclusive. We find this in all the cults, but among those we’d all accept as clearly Christian, The Catholic Church stands all alone in doing what you are condeming.

But you are still evading the point. Is that teacher ACCOUNTABLE for what that teacher presents as doctrine? Does truth matter to you - especially truth relating to our souls? Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine? Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what is taught? IF you answer yes to these, then The Catholic Church is accountable for its doctrines - no less (or more) than any other teacher of such.

There really are 20,000+ churches for a reason - they simply can not agree on doctrine.

So, tell us, which other churches does The Catholic Church agree with? List 'em.

Friend, again, you have a very valid point but for some reason I don’t understand, you don’t see how this applies to your denomination more than any other - and in some cases, exclusively to your denomination. You rebuke self for designating self as the sole, authoritaitive, infallible/unaccountable interpreter but seem unaware that the only one that does that is your denomination - the one you are supposedly defending (rather than rebuking). Look, we all know: The Catholic Church has a unity of doctrine with one, exclusive: ITSELF. A unity of one with one: SELF. That’s it. That’s all. And even THAT is ONLY officially, formally and currently. If you are troubled by that (and perhaps you should be), then you need to spend a WHOLE LOT MORE time looking at your denomination and the situation there. The proverb: “pot calling the kettle black” comes to mind.

The issue is accountability. Are teachers of doctrine accountable? If yes, then The Catholic Church is fully accountable for what it teaches - no less than any other. And we can then discus the subject of this thread: WHAT is the most sound rule/canon for the norming of those teachings, including of The Catholic Church.

.