How can we rely on Sola Scriptura if the Bible has so many conflicting ideas?

[Nicea325]

Sure. Sola scriptura is the statement, ultimately, that the Scriptures are the only infallible authority the church possesses. That is what the sola in scriptura means. However, a magisterial authority - the church - is the only authority that possesses Scripture. Therefore, it’s the only authority that can rule on theological disputes.

Okay,but do you understand such a premise is false. How do you even know then that the current Bible we possess isn’t lacking ANY book(s)? So what you are stating is that Jesus excluded His church from sanctification and guidance of the Holy Spirit? So Jesus deliberately excluded infallibility to His church-correct? Then explain with certitude do you even know that a fallible church Jesus founded got the correct canon?

Where does any verse ever mention a canon or compiled Bible for the church?

 

[solarguy17]

Where does any verse ever mention a canon or compiled Bible for the church?

Clearly, there is no verse that lists the books to be included in the Bible. But if God wrote the Bible for His people then it would make sense that He would protect it and keep it accurate to what HE wants. How God choose to do this is beside the point. He could have done it multiple ways, compiled a complete copy and handed it to Paul, he could have wrote it on gold tablets and buried it in the woods, he could have engrained it completely in every person’s mind, ect. But God did none of those, instead He choose a few men to compile a list of books and call it canon so that it would be protected forever as His Word.

Obviously there is a difference between what catholics and non-catholics believe are canon in the OT.
The wikipedia article on Deuterocanonical Books is very interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
But really, it doesn’t matter. Christians are to use the NT for church law and such. The OT affirms Jesus’ role, and gives us the history of the universe God created.

 

[JRKH]

Clearly, there is no verse that lists the books to be included in the Bible. But if God wrote the Bible for His people then it would make sense that He would protect it and keep it accurate to what HE wants.

So why didn’t he include a list of the books so that we would be clear and everyone would have the same ones instead of disputing? It would be such a simple thing for God to do.

I cannot agree with this. When I was exploring these matters years ago, it struck me as very odd that people would make this claim. This is something of critical import. Nothing the God chooses to do is “besides the point” IMHO.

He could have done it multiple ways, compiled a complete copy and handed it to Paul, he could have wrote it on gold tablets and buried it in the woods, he could have engrained it completely in every person’s mind, ect. But God did none of those, instead He choose a few men to compile a list of books and call it canon so that it would be protected forever as His Word.

So then - instead of saying that God’s choice of this method is “beside the point” one should really be asking "Why did God choose this method?

For me the deciding factor in this was the great range of “bible based” beliefs floating around in the various SS churches. The more I looked at it, the more apparent it became to me that God had a different plan in mind than the one evidenced by Sola Scriptura outside of an authoritative Church.

Again - in my search and study on this matter, the answer became very clear that it was because a book - independent of an God protected teaching authority - would be open to all sorts of interpretation, twisting and abuse.
I believe this is why God, in the Bible, points so clearly to the authority of the Church.

Obviously there is a difference between what catholics and non-catholics believe are canon in the OT.

But really, it doesn’t matter. Christians are to use the NT for church law and such. The OT affirms Jesus’ role, and gives us the history of the universe God created.

I agree that the difference in the OT canon is not of any great import theologically. The OT is there mainly as support for the NT.
However - I do think that it IS a problem for those claiming Sola Scriptura as one of the pillars of their theology. For what occurred at the very genesis of the SS movement is rather telling.
I know that this is a gross oversimplification, but it has always struck me this way…
The reformers declare the bible to be the ultimate authority and then almost immediately change the bible by removing books.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything…just sharing what I saw in my journey.

Peace
James

[/QUOTE]

 

[Faithdancer]

The Bible is inerrant, and any “contradictions” are superficial at most, since the Bible from start to finish is about Jesus Christ, who is God and in whom there are no contradictions.

The Bible was also meant to be read and understood by all Christians- in fact Scripture itself states that Christians have that duty . Being “read to” on Sundays is not the same thing as reading it for one’s self. Further, there are plenty of excellent commentaries on the various books, and concordances are also (obviously) available.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There are tons of “commentaries” which conflict with each other, on “essentials”, “nonessentials”, what “essential” means, what “nonessential” means, etc.

There is one Truth and that Truth is found in Christ’s true Church, Catholics believe they are members of that one Church.

 

[Faithdancer]

There are tons of “commentaries” which conflict with each other, on “essentials”, “nonessentials”, what “essential” means, what “nonessential” means, etc.

There is one Truth and that Truth is found in Christ’s true Church, Catholics believe they are members of that one Church.

There is one Truth, yes- and it is found revealed in God’s word, the Holy Bible. The Bible is God-breathed; subsequent documents, whether written by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are not, however helpful and informative they may be.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There is one Truth, yes- and it is found revealed in God’s word, the Holy Bible. The Bible is God-breathed; subsequent documents, whether written by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are not, however helpful and informative they may be.

Typical non-denominationalist view, but far from the belief of any of the early Church. The one Truth is found revealed in the God-sustained Church, God-preserved Sacred Tradition and the God-inspired Bible through God-breathed Holy Men and Women, members of that God-sustained Church.

 

[Faithdancer]

When I use the term God-breathed it is in the sense in which Scripture itself uses it, i.e. 2nd Tim. 3:16. To apply it to fallible human beings is to misapply it.

 

[SteveVH]

When I use the term God-breathed it is in the sense in which Scripture itself uses it, i.e. 2nd Tim. 3:16. To apply it to fallible human beings is to misapply it.

Quite right. That is why Jesus promised the Holy Spirit; because human beings are fallible. Lucky for us the infallibility of the Catholic Church rests in the protection of the Holy Spirit who prevents error from entering into Catholic dogma and doctrine as taught by the bishops of the Church in communion with the Pope. I don’t think that you would argue with the statement that the Holy Spirit is, indeed, infallible, and I don’t think that you would argue with the statement that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. In fact, so much so that what the Church would bind on earth, would also be bound in heaven and what it would loose on earth would also be loosed in heaven. Incredible, awesome authority. The Church is not guided by fallible men. It is guided and protected by God himself. It is, after all, Christ’s Church.

The protection of the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be interpreted as falling upon all Christians in their individual interpretations, The unity in belief among SS advocates resembles a shattered piece of glass, The evidence is all around us.

 

[Faithdancer]

The usual tautological argument in support of papal infallibility.

 

[SteveVH]

There is one Truth, yes- and it is found revealed in God’s word, the Holy Bible. The Bible is God-breathed; subsequent documents, whether written by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are not, however helpful and informative they may be.

The only reason, however, that you know that the various texts of the Bible are “God-breathed” is because a group of men who happened to be Catholic bishops got together and proclaimed it so about 1600 years ago.

But to claim that only the Bible contains the one Truth is to deny the very history of the Church which Christ founded which happened to flourish, even through persecution, for nearly four hundred years before we even had an official canon of Scripture.

The Catholic faith was not founded on the Bible. It was founded by and is based upon a Person; Jesus Christ. It was from the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, handed down by the Apostles and their successors, that the Bible was born. It is simply that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. It is not all of it.

If those men had the authority, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, to determine what you hold as the “only Truth”, and you had better hope that they did, then why would you so easily discard what the Church decides in other matters of faith and morals?

 

[SteveVH]

The usual tautological argument in support of papal infallibility.

And you refute it how? By simply dismissing it?

 

[fhansen]

Even within the New Testament, the Bible has more than a few contradictions. I believe that the Bible is sacred and divinely inspired, but the idea of “Sola Scriptura” means that we all need to be theological scholars to understand the intricacies of the text, doesn’t it? What about your “Average Joe/Jane” who works 12 hours a day, gets home and spends time with family/household chores/taking care of kids, and then might get maybe ten minutes to read the Word before turning in for the night.

I’ve heard of countless people who have tried to find the “truth” by themselves with just their Bible, and end up confused and disheartened.

I myself have made the Bible a huge part of my life, but even I feel I can look at it and, based on what’s going on in my life or who I am associating with, take a different thing out of it from one point or another.

Surely this points to the need for guidance from people who devote their entire lives to God, who can shepherd us in the right direction? And let’s not forget that we in North America and Europe are privileged to be able to read. How does Sola Scriptura stand up for the masses upon masses of people who cannot?

Absolutely true. Countless generations understood the faith via the preaching/teaching of the Church, which began preaching the gospel, BTW, before a single word of the NT was written.

 

[JRKH]

The Bible is inerrant, and any “contradictions” are superficial at most, since the Bible from start to finish is about Jesus Christ, who is God and in whom there are no contradictions.

I like that you used the word “inerrant” instead of infallible here. To me this is a more accurate statement when applied to the written word. Fallibility IMHO involves more than the correct words written, it involves understanding.

As to the matter of superficiality…That will depend on the point of view of the one reading and trying to understand. What you might consider superficial - another may not.

The Bible was also meant to be read and understood by all Christians- in fact Scripture itself states that Christians have that duty . Being “read to” on Sundays is not the same thing as reading it for one’s self.

Amen - Could not agree more. However, it should also be noted that Scripture is intended to be read and understood in the context of a group. Paul praised the Bereans, not for reading Scripture individually but together as a group. NT Scripture is full of the call to unity in mind and understanding.

Further, there are plenty of excellent commentaries on the various books, and concordances are also (obviously) available.

As another pointed out these secondary sources can be contradictory to each other and this is largely because the writers are not following the Biblical model. They are coming from different faith traditions which are, in various essentials, incompatible with each other.

When I use the term God-breathed it is in the sense in which Scripture itself uses it, i.e. 2nd Tim. 3:16. To apply it to fallible human beings is to misapply it.

Yes indeed Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching. This is what Paul says to Timothy. You are quite right in saying this.
I should like to point out here, for clarity, that when we Catholics use the term “Church”, we too are using it in the biblical sense. That the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).

So consider this if you will.

Of what value is a Pillar and a Bulwark if it is fallible? How can it support Truth? If a Pillar fails does not that which it supports fall? If a Bulwark fail does not the foundation of the wall fail?

In other words the two things that Paul speaks of here are intertwined. The Truth of Scripture and the support and protection of the Church. To try to separate the two things or to try to redefine them is to go against Scripture.

Scripture itself speaks of the need for unity, for discussion, for council to resolve issues. Jesus tells us to take such matters to the Church and has promised his protection as well as His authority.

The things I read in the NT books points me toward a Church that is organized, visible and authoritative. From Mt 18:15-18 to Acts 15. From Jesus prayer for unity, to Paul’s and Peter’s calls for unity.
I know that many protestants I have spoken with disagree…and I only ask them to provide the compelling evidence from Scripture for their view. So far, none have been able to.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

When I use the term God-breathed it is in the sense in which Scripture itself uses it, i.e. 2nd Tim. 3:16. To apply it to fallible human beings is to misapply it.

Regardless of how inerrant and inspired Scripture is, it requires a living agent to read and interpret and understand it, and the various candidates for the job: you, me, Luther, the Catholic magisterium, a particular church or denomination, etc, often interpret it differently. So them the questions becomes: Who is qualified for the job? Who, if anyone, has been given the authority and guidance to interpret and discern the meaning of the Word of God correctly?

 

[rcwitness]

Ive read through most of this thread and love the discussion!

Thank you JRKH for laying out your stance with the Church model of Scripture Interpreting.

I agree that there is not a sound arguement against Church authority (each local community in unity with a bishop, and each bishop in unity with one another, while reserving a prime bishop such as Jesus established on Peter as having an authority among the bishops) providing ultimate Interpretation to be held by the whole Body of Christ.

This faith does not Teach that individuals cannot interpret Scripture! Neither does it Teach that Church authority (Magisterium) or Sacred Tradition can contradict Sacred Scripture!

S.S. Contends that Catholic Teaching contradicts Sacred Scripture. This comes from mis-understanding either/both Catholic Teaching and Sacred Scripture.

I have lots of respect with some definitions of S.S. (Especially from Jon.S) to the point that it is very close to the Catholic reverence to Scripture.

Paz de Cristo
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

The usual tautological argument in support of papal infallibility.

I would be interested to know your definition of Papal Infallibility…?

And, do you think Peter was able to teach error, or were his Teachings protected through his office?

Paz
Michael

 

[ericc]

Yes - Jon has explained this to me as well.

In my conversations with members of various sects, on this topic I have expressed the opinion that if the original reformers or their immediate successors had come together in council to resolve their theological differences using the biblical model Protestantism would have a much greater claim to my respect.
However - that is not what happened. Instead they never held a council, each group disowned the others and they even changed the Bible - the very thing they claimed to be the ultimate in infallibility…That one boggles my mind.

500 years later we have the benefit of seeing the results so far…it ain’t pretty.

That is very much why I returned to the Catholic Church. I just could not be Christian and not be Catholic. The Catholic Church is the most biblical and has the best historical claim to the Church that Christ founded. The only other Church that comes close it the EO.

Great. Lets’ have a council and resolve this.
Oh yea - - - Lutherans and Catholics already are.

Peace
James

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Sola Scriptura during the first 300 years post resurrection because the NT canon wasn’t finalized yet. If you don’t have the Bible, you definitely don’t have Bible only Protestant Churches then. Which means no Protestant church can lay claim to apostolic succession. Catholicism sidestepped circularity because the Church came first, the Bible later as a product of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can claimed authority because there was only 1 Church then with clear apostolic succession. The Gospels were preached orally. Printed Bibles came very much later. The Gospels as taught orally indicates the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth, and any disputes within the community were taken to the Church for final resolution. Even if the Reformed Churches were able to 1500 yrs later came up with their own version of protestant magisterium to resolve theological disputes, they still wouldn’t have the teaching authority as passed down by the apostles (which BTW still include taking issues to the Catholic Church for resolution), unless they remained within the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they chose to remain outside and proclaim to be their own lords. So no matter how learned/intelligent they are, if one decided to take matters in their own hands and do it outside the Church that Jesus instituted, they remain illegitimate.

 

[rcwitness]

This faith does not Teach that individuals cannot interpret Scripture! Neither does it Teach that Church authority (Magisterium) or Sacred Tradition can contradict Sacred Scripture!

Along with this point…

Individuals can and should seek personal interpretations from Scripture. We should study and pray for Gods guidence through Scripture. Many Protestants find true Interpretation which leads to their Godly lives. Yet just as the Pope cannot contradict Tradition, neither can personal interpretation contradict Magisterial interpretation. But when individual Christians interpret something, even if it does not contradict Magisterial Teaching, it does not have binding authority on the whole Body.

There are actually only 12 passages which contain official Magisterial Interpretation which, though there may be more than the one Interpretation given by the Magisterium, cannot be contradicted. It is said, all heresies and false interpretations contradict at least one of these.

Paz de Cristo
Michael

 

[rcwitness]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have Sola Scriptura during the first 300 years post resurrection because the NT canon wasn’t finalized yet. If you don’t have the Bible, you definitely don’t have Bible only Protestant Churches then. Which means no Protestant church can lay claim to apostolic succession. Catholicism sidestepped circularity because the Church came first, the Bible later as a product of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can claimed authority because there was only 1 Church then with clear apostolic succession. The Gospels were preached orally. Printed Bibles came very much later. The Gospels as taught orally indicates the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth, and any disputes within the community were taken to the Church for final resolution. Even if the Reformed Churches were able to 1500 yrs later came up with their own version of protestant magisterium to resolve theological disputes, they still wouldn’t have the teaching authority as passed down by the apostles (which BTW still include taking issues to the Catholic Church for resolution), unless they remained within the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they chose to remain outside and proclaim to be their own lords. So no matter how learned/intelligent they are, if one decided to take matters in their own hands and do it outside the Church that Jesus instituted, they remain illegitimate.

To defend a genuine aspect of Protestantism…

The Protestant faith does take what the Catholic Church bound as inerrant canon and hold it as the highest authority. The Cat faith does this same thing, but with neccessary balance regarding what was Sacredly handed down orally and NOT contradicting the Written Tradition of Sacred Scripture, and reserving ultimate Interpretation of this Canon to the Magisterial body in Communion with the Chair of Peter.

Paz
Michael