Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Pax]

There was authority over interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life and those of his disciples. A fellow poster named SteveG prior to the great forum crash a number of years ago presented the following case for authority and succession:

He said:

It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.

As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

continued on next post:

 

[Pax]

continued from prior post:

The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.

Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.

Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.

Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.

In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.

Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.

For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.

Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

continued:

In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?

The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.

The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?

1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?

6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;

What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.

Argument
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

The proof is found in the historical record which we have mentioned earlier in this thread. Your quote from John 14:2 has nothing to do with defining which is the one true church, and the way you appear to be using it would suggest that disunity is fundamentally part of what Christ intended. This suggestion is denied in John 17 and in many other parts of the NT.

God bless.

**Pax,**Many Protestants view Scripture as the Word Who speaks directly to us. Scripture declares it to be the case in John 1:1. The Bible is not seen as another book, nor an important reference book, many Protestants regard it as the Body of Christ from Whom the Holy Spirit speaks to the Faithful, as Jesus told us, John 7:37-38.

The suggested imitation of the Sanhedrin by Jesus as a template of Christian practice is ambiguous, agreeably the early Christians did gather to discuss arising issues, but the connection between Christian practice and that of the Sanhedrin is at best tenuous (Cf. Isaiah 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” and St Paul, “Therefore brethren, we are debtors - not of the flesh, to live according to the flesh…For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God”, Rm 8:12,14)

In advocating I patronize disunity within the Body of Christ is misrepresentation of my argument. I fail to see where John 14: 2 allows for this interpretation. What I would advocate is complementarity in practice.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

AmericanJosiah ,

Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous views.

Scripture states unequivocally that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”[1 Tim 3:15]. Scripture nowhere makes that claim for itself.

Scripture never once so much as even mentions The Catholic Church. Not once. Ever. Not for anything, about anything, concerning anything. In any context. Even so much as in passing about nothing at all.

While we are to uphold the truth, this verse says nothing about we - or any group, organization, body, institute, denomination, congregation or anything else thereof - being normative. For anything.

The “sure word as taught” is something that is handed down and protected by the Church that Jesus himself established in Matthew 16:18. That Church is the Catholic Church. We know this by way of the appellation and identification of the term “catholic” first being used by Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the apostle John.

Of course, you have nothing whatsoever to substantiate this - just the claim of self for self.

But you ARE relating the standard Catholic rebuttal to Sola Scriptura. It is rejected NOT because The Catholic Church has an alternative norma normans but because it rejects accountability (in the exclusive, sole case of itself alone) - and thus norming and all things related to it - including WHATEVER might serve as the rule/canon/norma normans in such. RCC: “I’m right cuz I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right so I am, so there. I don’t need no norming cuz I’m right. Just forget all that and just accept “with docility” whatever I alone say as correct cuz it is.” That’s the rebuttal. It’s not an alternative rule/canon/norma normans in norming - it’s the exemption of self from accountability, the circumvention of norming for self alone.

It is my contention that there is only one entity up to teaching “the sure word as taught” and that entity is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, that entity is the Church established by Jesus Christ, that is the Church to whom Jesus made promises, that is the Church that Jesus gave power and authority, that is the Church that history shows to be the Catholic Church. No one else, individually or collectively, can make the claims or assume the power, authority, or teach in the same Holy Spirit guided fashion as the Church established by Jesus. He promised that he would remain with the Church until the end of the age, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that Jesus is fully capable of keeping those promises and I believe that he has in fact done so.

1. You can believe WHATEVER you want. This thread is not about pure acts of faith. Look, I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith here in this regard as you afford to our Mormon friends for EXACTLY the same act of faith in exactly the same matter vis-a-vis their denominaiton. Fair enough? I’m sure you think so. Let’s move on.
2. You might be interested in knowing that Jesus never promised The Catholic Church anything. He never authorized it anything. He never even so much as mentioned it. About anything. For anything. Concerning anything. At any time. In any context. Even so much as entirely in passing about nothing at all.
3. I fail to see how any of that teaches that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively, perpetually - is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming.

… continues in the next post

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues the post above

The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus’s Church nor will any claims against the position, power, and authority of the Church. Sola Scriptura was specifically designed to weaken the position, power, and authority of the Church. Scripture is, as the bible itself claims, “…inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”[2 Tim 3:16-17]. Scripture does not say that it “alone” is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete for every good work. If scripture meant to say “alone” then scripture would have contained the word “alone.”

Again, I fail to see how any of this relates to the issue of accountability. Or how it confirms that The Catholic Church - specifically, particularly, exclusively and perpetually - is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming.

Moreover, scripture would not have told us that there are “teachers”, that the bishop must be able to refute/confute/correct/convince the gainsayers/those that are wrong/disagree/those that are against the sure word as taught. Please note that I have over ten English translations of scripture and there is nothing wrong with the use of the term “confute” as you can see from a sample of the varying translations used in my prior sentence.

Where is the verse that says that bishops exclusively in The Catholic Church alone are infallible/unaccountable? Not even The Catholic Church claims that.

While you are looking for some mention of The Catholic Church and that states that it and it itself alone is exempt from accountability; while you are looking for something to support that a teacher is infallible and exempt from accountability, consider the following in that light:

2 Peter 2:1
Titus 2:1
1 Timothy 6:3
James 3:1
Matthew 13:52
Luke 20:46
Ephesians 4:14
Revelation 2:2

Did you know that Jesus over and over warned of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray? And He NEVER exempted The Catholic Church (or any bishop thereof) from that. Did you know that Jesus PRAISED the Ephesian Christians for regarding their teachers as accountable, for norming/testing them and for declaring them to be false?

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to those questions (and, I realize, as a Catholic you may not), then you regard teachers as accountable. And the next question would be: WHAT best now serves as the norma normans in the epistemological norming of the teaching? Many think that Scripture does. Those that reject Sola Scriptura (RCC, LDS, all the cults) do so NOT because they have an alternative norma normans (they don’t ) but because they each reject accountability - but only, exclusively, solely in the case of self alone. THAT is what you are trying to defend - that epistemology.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

**Pax,**Jesus stood apart from the Sanhedrin for a number of reasons: He was not beholden to anyone in imitation of lifestyle, it is for a Christian to follow Him.
Neither the Christian (nor the Sanhedrin) can dictate to Him way of life, nor of belief. Christian obedience does not permit it.

Jesus stood out in bold relief from His cultural surrounds: He freely associated with all strata of society. He crosses social boundaries.He was without precedent among contemporary Jewish teachers. He shattered the mould of traditional views and expectations. Mark 10:43, records His servanthood concept of spiritual leadership as diametrically oposed to the preoccupation with position and dominance so typical of the Catholic Church. Scripture invites us to an alternative witness.

Referring us to follow Sanhedrin hierarchic practice “because Jesus was familiar with it” takes “one small step for one man, one giant leap for mankind”…unfortunately in the wrong direction.

 

[Pax]

**Pax,**Many Protestants view Scripture as the Word Who speaks directly to us. Scripture declares it to be the case in John 1:1. The Bible is not seen as another book, nor an important reference book, many Protestants regard it as the Body of Christ from Whom the Holy Spirit speaks to the Faithful, as Jesus told us, John 7:37-38.

The suggested imitation of the Sanhedrin by Jesus as a template of Christian practice is ambiguous, agreeably the early Christians did gather to discuss arising issues, but the connection between Christian practice and that of the Sanhedrin is at best tenuous (Cf. Isaiah 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” and St Paul, “Therefore brethren, we are debtors - not of the flesh, to live according to the flesh…For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God”, Rm 8:12,14)

In advocating I patronize disunity within the Body of Christ is misrepresentation of my argument. I fail to see where John 14: 2 allows for this interpretation. What I would advocate is complementarity in practice.

Kevin in Christ,

First of all let me stand corrected concerning your advocacy of disunity. I misspoke and apologize. What I really meant by my poorly worded remarks is not that you or most other Protestants would advocate disunity. Instead, I simply believe that sola scriptura creates disunity. Advocacy of sola scriptura from my view would perpetuate that problem even though the advocates would not intend it to be so. Interestingly enough Martin Luther, the author of reformation sola scriptura, bemoaned the fact that disunity and varied opinions of scripture became rampant as part of the reformation. He has been quoted as saying, and he wasn’t happy about it, that “we now have as many interpretations of scripture as we have heads.”

I completely disagree with your contentions concerning John 1. John 1 speaks of Jesus as the eternal word and unity with the Father. John 1 is not using the term “word” to mean sacred scripture is the body of Christ.

Catholics would agree that sacred scripture is God speaking to us in the language of men. Since God is trinitarian in nature this means that scripture is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit speaking to us in the language of men. Upon that much we can certainly agree. Likewise, we can easily agree upon the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This latter point, however, does not allow for varied interpretations of scripture that are untrue or at odds with one another. The Holy Spirit speaks and teaches the truth and cannot teach contradictory things to members of the flock. The disunity we have because of sola scriptura is not by way of the Holy Spirit.

You also gave the following passages of scripture as an argument against Jesus use of the Jewish governance by the Sanhedrin and the NT Church governance by apostles, then their successors the bishops:

Isaiah 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” and St Paul, “Therefore brethren, we are debtors - not of the flesh, to live according to the flesh…For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God”, Rm 8:12,14)

Please be advised that Isaiah 65:17 is a reference to the end of time just as Peter’s commence harken back to Isaiah when he says:

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

The passage from Isaiah has no relevance to how the Church is or is not governed. Likewise, the passage you quoted from Paul is not related to how the Church is governed nor does it speak of sola scriptura or individual guidance of scripture as opposed to that of the Church. Paul’s reference to being led by the Spirit pertains to our behavior and is a warning against living sinfully in the flesh as opposed to living in and being led by the Spirit. The distinction is between those that are born again in the Spirit versus those that remain living in the flesh. The former are the sons of God.

So what does scripture say specifically about interpretation of scripture. In 2 Peter 1:20-21 we read the following:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Peter then immediately launches into a narrative about false teachers and the fact that many will follow them.

continued on next post:

 

[Pax]

continued from prior post:

In his first letter Peter has this to say about scripture:

1 Peter 3:15-18
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Please notice how Peter says that Paul’s letters contain some things that are difficult to understand and that the ignorant and unstable twist Paul’s teachings along with other scriptures to their own destruction. Please note that Peter says that these people are ignorant and unstable. He does not say that they are unbelievers or that they are insincere. What are these people ignorant of? In my opinion they are ignorant of the “sure word as taught” and that they fail to heed Peter’s warning concerning personal interpretation of scripture found in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

I do not claim that my presentation of Church governance is “proof.” The requirements of “proof” will never be met to a court room standard. Instead, it is the persuasiveness of the material and the history which attests to it that makes the case.

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[Pax]

AmericanJosiah in Christ,

Please refrain from making a rant and please refrain from calling the Catholic Church “a cult.”
The latter is a violation of forum rules and make no sense whatsoever.

I will only address one thing which seems to loom large in your remarks. You stated that scripture nowhere mentions the Catholic Church. You make the mistake of contending that scripture’s remarks do not apply to the Catholic Church because you fail to find the word Catholic in your English translation of the bible.

There is a very able participant on this forum by the name of Randy Carson and he presented the following to someone making the same argument you’re making:

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

** “Catholic Church” in the Bible**

Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.

Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

---

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

**Pax,**Jesus stood apart from the Sanhedrin for a number of reasons: He was not beholden to anyone in imitation of lifestyle, it is for a Christian to follow Him.
Neither the Christian (nor the Sanhedrin) can dictate to Him way of life, nor of belief. Christian obedience does not permit it.

Jesus stood out in bold relief from His cultural surrounds: He freely associated with all strata of society. He crosses social boundaries.He was without precedent among contemporary Jewish teachers. He shattered the mould of traditional views and expectations. Mark 10:43, records His servanthood concept of spiritual leadership as diametrically oposed to the preoccupation with position and dominance so typical of the Catholic Church. Scripture invites us to an alternative witness.

Referring us to follow Sanhedrin hierarchic practice “because Jesus was familiar with it” takes “one small step for one man, one giant leap for mankind”…unfortunately in the wrong direction.

Kevin in Christ,

Jesus was not beholden to anyone, but Jesus was the perfect man and the perfect Jew. He fulfilled the law in everyway. Jesus wasn’t beholden, but Jesus could freely choose to do as he saw fit. Likewise, the OT is not abolished by the NT, but it is rather fulfilled by the NT. Moreover, those things of the Old Covenant are but shadows of the good things to come in the New Covenant, and they frequently prefigure things in the New Covenant. I think you have a long, long way to go to simply dismiss what has been presented. It is not simply the pattern of the Sanhedrin. It is also all of the other things that were mentioned from Eliakim in Isaiah through the councils and bishops mentioned and discussed in the NT. Beyond that, we have recorded history confirming our contentions.

Your comment that

His servanthood concept of spiritual leadership as diametrically oposed to the preoccupation with position and dominance so typical of the Catholic Church.

is seriously misplaced. One of the Pope’s titles is “Servant of Servants.” In your experience do you see where any contemporary Pope falls into the category you’ve described? Sure, there were bad Pope’s and there have been bad characters among bishops. Sinful men do not establish the rule and using bad historical figures in an attempt to undo what is right and correct by Jesus teachings and commands concerning his Church is improper and does not help your case.

God bless.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

**Pax,**God be with you in Jesus Christ. Amen

You are forgiven for your hot-headed temperament and rash recourse to condemnation.

Pax, I am not a Protestant, I am a Catholic who attempts an understanding of many a Protestants position on Scriptural interpretation; rather than besmirch and discredit I attempt to understand another Christian’s viewpoint.

Sola Scriptura does not defame personal interpretation of Scripture. A child stumbling in walking does not bring the ability to walk into disrepute.

Not all Protestants align themselves with dogmas propounded by Martin Luther. And Sola Scriptura permits varied interpretation of Scripture. The disunity we see is not fruit of the Holy Spirit. Your commentary upon Scripture comes from a certain viewpoint, but does not justify condemnation of the rest, nor confutation. We ask ourselves “Who are the false teachers?” In this we must refer to prayerful study of Scripture. Both Sola Scriptura and Tradition justify this position. A creditable claim to my insistence for complimentarity in practice.

“…We find no evil in this… but if a spirit or an angel has spoken… let us not fight against God” (Acts 23:9)

“Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38) The ways of the old temple worship are finalized in Christ.

 

[Pax]

**Pax,**God be with you in Jesus Christ. Amen

You are forgiven for your hot-headed temperament and rash recourse to condemnation.

Pax, I am not a Protestant, I am a Catholic who attempts an understanding of many a Protestants position on Scriptural interpretation; rather than besmirch and discredit I attempt to understand another Christian’s viewpoint.

Sola Scriptura does not defame personal interpretation of Scripture. A child stumbling in walking does not bring the ability to walk into disrepute.

Not all Protestants align themselves with dogmas propounded by Martin Luther. And Sola Scriptura permits varied interpretation of Scripture. The disunity we see is not fruit of the Holy Spirit. Your commentary upon Scripture comes from a certain viewpoint, but does not justify condemnation of the rest, nor confutation. We ask ourselves “Who are the false teachers?” In this we must refer to prayerful study of Scripture. Both Sola Scriptura and Tradition justify this position. A creditable claim to my insistence for complimentarity in practice.

“…We find no evil in this… but if a spirit or an angel has spoken… let us not fight against God” (Acts 23:9)

“Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38) The ways of the old temple worship are finished.

Kevin in Christ,

I was not at all hot headed and didn’t think I was coming across that way. If so, then I apologize for that too.

Please explain what you mean by “complimentarity” in practice. I meant to ask this earlier but was too busy with other points.

God bless.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

Beyond that, we have recorded history confirming our contentions.

Your comment that is seriously misplaced. One of the Pope’s titles is “Servant of Servants.” In your experience do you see where any contemporary Pope falls into the category you’ve described? Sure, there were bad Pope’s and there have been bad characters among bishops. Sinful men do not establish the rule and using bad historical figures in an attempt to undo what is right and correct by Jesus teachings and commands concerning his Church is improper and does not help your case.

God bless.

Recorded history of the Catholic Church confirms your argument. However there are others with a history. History is often the story of the victors, its presentation must be unbiassed, both sides must be allowed a voice. God cannot alter the past but historians can.

 

[Pax]

Recorded history of the Catholic Church confirms your argument. However there are others with a history. History is often the story of the victors, its presentation must be unbiassed, both sides must be allowed a voice. God cannot alter the past but historians can.

True!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

I was not at all hot headed and didn’t think I was coming across that way. If so, then I apologize for that too.

Please explain what you mean by “complimentarity” in practice. I meant to ask this earlier but was too busy with other points.

God bless.

“…charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers” (2 Tim 2:14)

“It is honourable for a man to stop striving, since any fool can start a quarrel” (Prov 20:3)

“…if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God calls us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Cor 7:15-16)

“So Abram said to Lot, ‘Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmenand your herdsmen; for we are brethren’” (Gen 13: 8)

 

[Pax]

Kevin in Christ,

I am not in favor of strife or trivial argumentation over words. I am, however, in favor of honest discussion concerning the truth. Sola scriptura is a serious issue with serious consequences. I do not condemn those that believe in the doctrine, but I believe the doctrine is false. Honest discussion of the issue is necessary in order to reveal the truth. It would be a disservice not to explore the issue forthrightly and with conviction.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin in Christ,

I am not in favor of strife or trivial argumentation over words. I am, however, in favor of honest discussion concerning the truth. Sola scriptura is a serious issue with serious consequences. I do not condemn those that believe in the doctrine, but I believe the doctrine is false. Honest discussion of the issue is necessary in order to reveal the truth. It would be a disservice not to explore the issue forthrightly and with conviction.

To be honest with you, I enjoy our time together. Thank you for the opportunity to debate:thumbsup:

“You have to obey - and you have to command - always with great love” (St Josemaria Escriva)

I take it you mean by “the truth”, agreement with yourself?

“Seeing these innocent souls at close quarters, I realize what a mistake it is not to train them from the very start when they are like wax to receive impressions for better or for worse. There are so many souls which would attain sanctity if only they were well directed” (St Therese de Lisieux)

Unfortunately those convinced their way is the only way see only opposition or need for correction in others. We attempt to fit people in the space between our ears. Sola Scriptura? The Catholic Church is the true Church of God. I have faith that by the constant prayerful study of Scripture a soul will be led in her direction. A child learns to walk by constant perseverance in walking. If they are carried they never learn.

“…do not provoke your children to wrath…”(Eph 6:4)

I admire your anxiety, if your motivation is with the right intention,

“I imagine that the angels themselves, if they came down as schoolmasters, would find it hard to control their anger. Only with the help of the Blessed Virgin do I keep from murdering some of them” (Benildus)

The serious consequences I see for Sola Scriptura is conversion to the Catholic Church, “Christ never seperates souls” (St Josemaria Escriva)

“Just as God’s creature, the sun, is one and the same the world over, so also does the Church’s preaching shine everywhere to enlighten all men who want to come to a knowledge of truth” (Irenaeus)

Is “honest discussion necessary in order to reveal the truth”? Would it be “a disservice not to explore the issue forthrightly and with conviction”?

" You do nothing with children unless you win their confidence and love by bringing them into touch with oneself, by breaking through all the hindrances that keep them at a distance. We must accommodate ouselves to their tastes, we must make ouselves like them" (John Bosco)

 

[Pax]

Kevin in Christ,

We all struggle with charity and understanding when it comes to deeply held beliefs that we are passionate about. My biggest problem is articulating what I am excited and passionate about without appearing to be closed minded or having some sort of superiority complex. Your points are well taken. Forums do not allow for face to face exchanges where the gentler and more understanding side shows through. I’ll work harder on my online manners.

God bless.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner in Christ,
I will comment and respond to only a few of your claims.

Ya, me too.

Ok, I guess we need to go through this one again. I said:

What is a pillar and a bulwark? Well, they are structural components that shore up or support the main structure. The main structure in 1Tim3:15 is the truth. Ok, what is the truth?
Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So, the truth is Jesus. Jesus’ church obviously and logically hold up Jesus. This should go without saying, but what else does it mean.

John 17:17
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the truth the word is the truth and Jesus is the word. So Jesus’ church was put in place to uphold Jesus (THE WORD) not the other way around.

To which you reply;

First of all, you wrongly limit the Church “as the pillar and bulwark of the truth” by your remarks. Please be advised that the Church is the body of Christ[1 Cor 12:27-28]. The Church doesn’t simply “hold up Jesus.” Yes…Jesus is, indeed, the truth but the inspired word of scripture is also the truth, and the Church is also the pillar and bulwark of the truth contained therein. To suggest otherwise is simply inconsistent with scripture and illogical.

Let’s take this a piece at a time.

First of all, you wrongly limit the Church “as the pillar and bulwark of the truth” by your remarks. Please be advised that the Church is the body of Christ[1 Cor 12:27-28]. The Church doesn’t simply “hold up Jesus.”

Let me ask you Pax. What is the function of the body of Christ? Is it not to hold up the head. The head of the body of Christ is of coarse Jesus Christ. The function of the body is to hold up the head. That through the lifting up of Christ to the world (matheteuo: teach, make disciples) we also lift up the body. His church.
Consider this:
Eph.4:
1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Paul says here in Eph. 4 That through Jesus death and resurrection gifts are given to the church. These gifts are given

12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Christ’s church exists for one reason and that is to hold up Jesus to the world and thereby exhort (lift up) itself.

Yes…Jesus is, indeed, the truth but the inspired word of scripture is also the truth, and the Church is also the pillar and bulwark of the truth contained therein. To suggest otherwise is simply inconsistent with scripture and illogical.

How have I suggested otherwise. This seems fairly consistant with my post.