Help with Sola Scriptura

[Cachonga]

Cat Herder:

In part because such things are mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.

These are different topics and were given as examples, not additional topics. I will simply say that I have yet to find these things (and others) in Scriptures.

How would you know which writings are Scripture inspired by God?

The canon is another topic for another thread.

And if you seriously think that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is not divinely inspired, then this “Roman Catholic” church against which you rail is a figment of your imagination. The (real) Catholic Church has always taught:

I know the RC Church teaches that the Bible is inspired. The point was that the question raised was not a good question.

The entire Bible.

Perhaps I wasn’t very clear on this. I’m not talking about the canon, but actual Scripture verses that have been “infallibly” defined (or interpreted) by the RC Church. If you believe the RC Church has “infallibly” defined the entire Bible, then why not give the official, “infallible” definition for the verses in question? The fact is that the RC Church has “infallibly” interpreted (I’ll use that word instead of defined, OK?) very few verses.

Please look in the mirror and say that to the person on the other side.

I do this every day.

And how would you know that your understanding of the Scriptures is pleasing to God?

By living as consistently as possible with how I understand the Scriptures to say I should.

They did. It was called the Sanhedrin and Jesus said of it:

Here’s a challenge for you – find ANYONE that believed the Sanhedrin was an “infallible” authority at any time in history (please, don’t give anything from Wikipedia – I could gather many quotes from there to “prove” almost anything. It’s not a reliable source!). The Matthew 23 verses given do not “prove” this (“Moses Seat” does not date back to Moses in any way, and was very similar to the pulpit in Churches today). What Matthew 23 does is show the hypocrisy of those who “sit on Moses seat”. And let’s not forget that Jesus condemned the Corban rule as a tradition of men (proven by the Scriptures), which was undoubtedly taught from the seat of Moses.

However, the Sanhedrin lost the favor of God when it condemned Jesus to die, and so lost its infallibility.

Again, you need to prove the Sanhedrin was ever considered “infallible”.

You are a man. How do we know you are right?

I believe I am being consistent with Scripture. If the RC Church has not “infallibly” interpreted this verse, then how do you know I’m wrong?

 

[Cat_Herder]

These are different topics and were given as examples, not additional topics. I will simply say that I have yet to find these things (and others) in Scriptures.

Here you go: Mt 5:48, Heb 12:14, Jam 3:2, Rev 21:27, 2Sam 12:13-14, Mt 5:26, Mt 12:32, Mt 12:36, 2Macc 12:44-46, 1Cor 3:15, 1Pet 3:18-20; 4:6, 2Tim 1:16-18, 1Cor 15:29-30

I predict you’ll come back and say, “well, I don’t believe those verses pertain to those things,” which raises the question of who gets to interpret Scripture. Mt 18:17 and 1Tim 3:15 answer that pretty squarely.

The canon is another topic for another thread.

Here is a sport you would be very good at.

I know the RC Church teaches that the Bible is inspired. The point was that the question raised was not a good question.

Perhaps I wasn’t very clear on this. I’m not talking about the canon, but actual Scripture verses that have been “infallibly” defined (or interpreted) by the RC Church. If you believe the RC Church has “infallibly” defined the entire Bible, then why not give the official, “infallible” definition for the verses in question? The fact is that the RC Church has “infallibly” interpreted (I’ll use that word instead of defined, OK?) very few verses.

I think you are presupposing that a Catholic doctrine has to be taught infallibly if it is taught at all (see below)

By living as consistently as possible with how I understand the Scriptures to say I should.

Like Luther, you are stating that your conscience is the ultimate authority. But that presupposes that your conscience is well and strongly formed. That’s not a given, just ask Paul:
1 Corinthians 8.7:

It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

Here’s a challenge for you – find ANYONE that believed the Sanhedrin was an “infallible” authority at any time in history (please, don’t give anything from Wikipedia – I could gather many quotes from there to “prove” almost anything. It’s not a reliable source!). The Matthew 23 verses given do not “prove” this (“Moses Seat” does not date back to Moses in any way, and was very similar to the pulpit in Churches today). What Matthew 23 does is show the hypocrisy of those who “sit on Moses seat”. And let’s not forget that Jesus condemned the Corban rule as a tradition of men (proven by the Scriptures), which was undoubtedly taught from the seat of Moses.
Again, you need to prove the Sanhedrin was ever considered “infallible”.

Here you go.
Encyclopedia Metropolitana:

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was unlimited, and from its sentence there was no appeal. The extent of its power may be calculated from an enumeration of those duties which were considered as its peculiar prerogatives. To it belonged exclusively the right to choose a King; to appoint the Minor Sanhedrins throughout all the Tribes and cities of Israel; to judge an idolatrous Tribe; to inflict capital punishment upon a false Prophet, or a High Priest; to administer the waters of jealousy, and to declare war. Such at least are the powers ascribed to it by the Rabbis, and which, if ever exercised, would have made the Judge, the King, and the High Priest mere ciphers. But the Sanhedrin was, besides, the infallible interpreter of the Law for the time being; and to question its decisions was a capital offence. We say, for the time being, for no Sanhedrin was bound to respect the decisions of its predecessors. What was affirmed by the Sanhedrin of one generation might be denied by that of the following generation, and yet both decisions were to be received as the true sense of the Law on pain of strangulation.

But what is clear is that Jesus said that the “scribes and Pharisees” who made up the Sanhedrin spoke with the authority of Moses, though they did not practice what they preached. However, they did not have jurisdiction to condemn the Lord and lost whatever authority they had when they did so.

I believe I am being consistent with Scripture. If the RC Church has not “infallibly” interpreted this verse, then how do you know I’m wrong?

Because the Church has the ordinary authority to interpret Scripture and there is no rule that says said interpretation must be done with the infallible magisterium.
Matthew 18.17:

If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.

 

[Cachonga]

Cat Herder:

Here you go: Mt 5:48, Heb 12:14, Jam 3:2, Rev 21:27, 2Sam 12:13-14, Mt 5:26, Mt 12:32, Mt 12:36, 2Macc 12:44-46, 1Cor 3:15, 1Pet 3:18-20; 4:6, 2Tim 1:16-18, 1Cor 15:29-30

I predict you’ll come back and say, “well, I don’t believe those verses pertain to those things,” which raises the question of who gets to interpret Scripture. Mt 18:17 and 1Tim 3:15 answer that pretty squarely.

Not the topic of this thread.

Here is a sport you would be very good at.

Nice ad hominem, but irrelevant to the topic.

I think you are presupposing that a Catholic doctrine has to be taught infallibly if it is taught at all (see below)

I think the presupposition is on your part because you keep missing the point. Let me rephrase the question - If the RC Church has not “infallibly” interpreted a particular verse of Scripture, then how can YOU know YOUR interpretation is correct? What if YOUR interpretation is different than that of another devout Catholic (I’ve seen a lot of that in these forums)? How do you decide which interpretation is correct? Your priest? Bishop? Maybe you have a direct line to the Pope? As for myself, I can discuss any verses I have questions about with my pastor and other members of my Church (yes, I do believe the Church is important!). We can look at the original languages, examine the context, and arrive at a meaning. It may not be “infallible”, but I don’t believe God requires us to have an “infallible” knowledge of anything.

Like Luther, you are stating that your conscience is the ultimate authority. But that presupposes that your conscience is well and strongly formed. That’s not a given, just ask Paul:

I’m not sure what 1 Cor 8:7 has to do with this. I could point out Paul’s comment in Acts 24:15 (“So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward God and toward men.” RSV), or his instructions to Timothy concerning Deacons (“they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” 1 Tim 3:9 RSV), or his greeting to Timothy (“I thank God whom I serve with a clear conscience, as did my fathers, when I remember you constantly in my prayers.” 2 Tim 1:3 RSV), just to name a few. Seems to me that a clear conscience, while not definitive, can be a good guide (especially when combined with Bible study).

Here you go.

Congratulations. You found a source from the 19th century. I notice, though, that your source says that a council can “infallibly” override an “infallible” decision from a previous council. I don’t think this is quite the way the RC Church thinks of “infallibility”. Furthermore, your source points out that this was not from Moses, and, in fact, was contradictory to the Mosaic Law. Just to cite an example – “But at all events it is certain that the constitution of the Sanhedrin is in direct opposition to that of the Supreme Court instituted by Moses, and that it could not have been established by him. Whenever it arose, it was an unlawful tribunal, which usurped the power committed by Moses to the Priests and Civil Governors;” (last paragraph on the same page as your link – you can also review previous paragraphs for a discussion on when the Sanhedrin may have arisen).

But what is clear is that Jesus said that the “scribes and Pharisees” who made up the Sanhedrin spoke with the authority of Moses, though they did not practice what they preached. However, they did not have jurisdiction to condemn the Lord and lost whatever authority they had when they did so.

I don’t believe Jesus ever associated the Sanhedrin with Moses seat (remember, not all “scribes and Pharisees” were members of the Sanhedrin). Also, as your previous source points out, the Sanhedrin was operating on usurped authority before Jesus came along, so the fact that they condemned Jesus has nothing to do with them “losing” any kind of authority.

Because the Church has the ordinary authority to interpret Scripture and there is no rule that says said interpretation must be done with the infallible magisterium.

It sounds like you’re saying that the RC Church has interpreted every verse of the Bible, it just hasn’t done so infallibly. If that’s the case, why is there still dispute among Catholics over the interpretation of verses? I fail to see what Matt 18:17 has to do with this particular point.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think the presupposition is on your part because you keep missing the point.

Pardon me? You are presupposing both the canon of the Bible and your own interpretation of Scripture, and the authority of your position on both; you are dodging these questions because you cannot answer them. That is not an ad hominem attack, but a statement of fact.

Let me rephrase the question - If the RC Church has not “infallibly” interpreted a particular verse of Scripture, then how can YOU know YOUR interpretation is correct?

And you are presupposing that Catholic teaching must be through the infallible magisterium to be correct. You have yet to demonstrate that this is a true statement and you cannot. I keep giving you Scripture upon Scripture that says that the Church was given the ordinary authority by God to interpret Scripture, and you reject them all.

What if YOUR interpretation is different than that of another devout Catholic (I’ve seen a lot of that in these forums)? How do you decide which interpretation is correct? Your priest? Bishop?

Yes and yes. They have authority to resolve these issues, as explained below.

Maybe you have a direct line to the Pope?

Actually, I have his email address,* but I don’t bother the Holy Father. He is kind of busy trying to rebuild Christendom in the face of an adverse secular culture in order to save souls from hell. I wish you would help us; maybe you could at least pray an Our Father and the Fatima Prayer every night. (I’d rather you prayed the Rosary but I suspect you’ll say no.)

As for myself, I can discuss any verses I have questions about with my pastor and other members of my Church (yes, I do believe the Church is important!). We can look at the original languages, examine the context, and arrive at a meaning. It may not be “infallible”, but I don’t believe God requires us to have an “infallible” knowledge of anything.

So you say we can all have our own church and our own opinion because no one is infallible.

Meanwhile, the Bible says…

[BIBLEDRB]Jn 10:16 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:3-6 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 16:17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 1:10 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 15:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jn 17:23[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:4 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 16:18-19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 18:17[/BIBLEDRB]

See also: Jn 17:17-23, 1 Cor 12:13, Rom 12:5, Col. 3:15, Phil 2:2.

Seems to me that a clear conscience, while not definitive, can be a good guide (especially when combined with Bible study).

How do you know you have one? The gift of discernment of spirits is, like tongues, not universal.

And why have you come to a different finding than well over 68% (or more) of the world’s Christians? In light of the Scriptures above, what is the significance of this?

I don’t believe Jesus ever associated the Sanhedrin with Moses seat (remember, not all “scribes and Pharisees” were members of the Sanhedrin).

Whether or not they were on the Sanhedrin and whether or not the Sanhedrin was legitimate, at least some of them legitimately had Moses’s authority–Jesus said that. If you can’t agree with the Lord, then how can you agree with anyone else?

It sounds like you’re saying that the RC Church has interpreted every verse of the Bible, it just hasn’t done so infallibly. If that’s the case, why is there still dispute among Catholics over the interpretation of verses? I fail to see what Matt 18:17 has to do with this particular point.

Because we can take our disputes to our pastors to have them ironed out–but unlike your church, our pastors can demonstrate a link of hands back to Jesus Himself, and also unlike your church, they teach the same doctrines that the Apostles did. Why does it matter?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 4:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 14:22[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Tit 1:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Ask yourself if this promise has been kept:

[BIBLEDRB]2 tim 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]

• It’s public record.

 

[PJM]

=Abeyta85;7055494]Hello!

So I have been talking with a Bible Alone believing Christian, and I need some help refuting some of the statements. I have searched for some threads, but couldn’t find as really good ones in depth.

Also…

This guy is a jerk, but I would like to correct him.

Any help is appreciated.

My dear friend in Christ;

Nothing is gained and much is lost by needless name calling. WWJD?

Find me one place where Paul tells people to think of themselves as sinners?

Never. Not one time. But he says over and over that You are the righteousness of God, You are a new creature in Christ, you were translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of His dearSon.

Obviously, Paul wanted people to be more God conscious than sin conscious now didnt He little catholic?

Actually not. Is Paul the only author of the bible? Can Paul’s teaching be at variance with the other bible authors?

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, **but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.** Jesus said to them **again, “Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” **And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Matt. 16:19; Jesus Speaking to Peter the just appointed head of His new Faith, New Covennt, New Church [all singular.] " 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." By absolute necessity this resonsibility has to incluse the exclusive right to interpert God’s Inspired Words. [2 Tim. 3:15-17, &1 Tim. 3:15.]

As to Paul and sin:

Rom.3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,

Rom. 7:11, 13, 17, 20 [Paul sspeaking of his own problems with sin] “For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” " So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. ** Now if I do what I do not want,** it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me."

**1 Tim. 1:15 ** "The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners;"

Heb. 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

Jas.4: 17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

It is a self-serving position to make such a calim, when truth lies in accepting the entire Divenly Inspired Bible; and there are many more Inspired authors, than just Brother Paul.

Love and prayers,
Pat**