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

[SyroMalankara]

This thread has gotten off topic, for which I take my share of blame.

Back on point, I reiterate: the Bible is inerrant. It is also sufficient. Nothing is to be added or taken away from Scripture. This does not preclude exegesis and exposition, whether in writing or from the pulpit.

Taken as a whole the Bible is seamless truth and the word of God, pointing consistently to Jesus Christ. Therefore, the question in the original post is moot, although it certainly got the horse movin’ out. 'Nuff said.

So which Bible do you consider “complete Scripture”? There are at least 6 generally accepted Apostolic Christian versions, all equally valid: Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, Greek Septuagint, Ge’ez Abyssinian, Saint Mesrob’s 5thC Armenian, Alexandrian Greek and at least a few different Torah/Tanakh accepted by various Jewish Sects, and the Samaritan version that is common in Israeli Northern Hills, not to mention all kinds of protestant editions - the most reliable being Oxford RSV with Deuterocanonicals, the Great Bible of Henry VIII and the Authorized King James of 1611 does have the Deuterocanonical Books intact; the Luther version has less books, the Geneva has more than Luther but less than the others, and most folks wouldn’t consider Jefferson’s Bible to be reliable at all but some Universalists, Deists, and some others do use that as well.

 

[fhansen]

Anyone with a sound mind and intelligence, who is guided by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that only those in the Roman Catholic power elite possess this ability.

Yes, that’s what the various Reformers, back in the day as well as today, have said, resulting in their various churches and various beliefs, including the JWs, other SS adherents.

 

[Faithdancer]

 

[Nicea325]

Peter most definitely did teach error on occasion, and Paul reproved him for it. But this is widely known. Peter was not infallible.

Nope! Poor biblical exegesis on your part my friend. Peter is not infallible which would equate his two letters as being fallible-correct?

 

[Faithdancer]

Nope! Poor biblical exegesis on your part my friend. Peter is not infallible which would equate his two letters as being fallible-correct?

No it does not equate. Peter’s letters are part of the canonical New Testament, which is inerrant.

 

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by SteveVH
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.

The usual tautological argument in support of papal infallibility.

Originally Posted by SteveVH

And you refute this, how? By simply dismissing it?

Faithdancer, I am sure you just overlooked my response, but would you mind answering it? I am very curious as to what you believe happened to the promises Christ himself gave to his Church in light of the unity of the Catholic Church and the disunity among Protestant faith traditions.

Thanks.

 

[SyroMalankara]

No it does not equate. Peter’s letters are part of the canonical New Testament, which is inerrant.

“canonical” New Testament - who decided?
“which is inerrant” - whether inerrant or not is not really the question is it, since Catholics nor protestants dispute this - however it doesn’t really matter if a text is inerrant and no one can inerrantly understand it. Are all readers able to inerrantly interpret/understand and come to the same conclusion objectively?

 

[Nicea325]

No it does not equate. Peter’s letters are part of the canonical New Testament, which is inerrant.

But that is not what you said. You made it clear:

Peter most definitely did teach error on occasion, and Paul reproved him for it. But this is widely known. Peter was not infallible

So how did a fallible man pull it off? Second, WHO determined his letter was to be part of the NT canon? His letter makes such a declaration?

 

[Lizz02]

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?

Sola Scriptura is not the only thing we should recognize but also tradition it plays a great part in the Catholic faith and for us to understand it better. And what’s good in the Catholic bible, there are small texts beside the verses there to prove that the scriptures are not contradicting. Check this out: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

 

[SteveVH]

Sola Scriptura is not the only thing we should recognize but also tradition it plays a great part in the Catholic faith and for us to understand it better. And what’s good in the Catholic bible, there are small texts beside the verses there to prove that the scriptures are not contradicting. Check this out: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

If we recognize Tradition then we can’t very well recognize Sola Scriptura, can we? Kind of self contradicting.

By the way, welcome to CAF.

 

[Faithdancer]

But that is not what you said. You made it clear:

Peter most definitely did teach error on occasion, and Paul reproved him for it. But this is widely known. Peter was not infallible

So how did a fallible man pull it off? Second, WHO determined his letter was to be part of the NT canon? His letter makes such a declaration?

You tell me how fallible human beings wrote Holy Scripture. Was it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I believe it was. That includes Peter’s letters. However, it does not follow that Peter was therefore infallible in everything else he said or did, any more than Moses was, or Paul was, or any of the other authors were. Obviously Peter was not acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the matter referred to in Galatians. That doesn’t make his letters inerrant.

I believe that the Bible is sufficient and perspicuous.You apparently believe that it is neither. That is an impasse and renders further discussion on the matter pointless. God bless, and adios!

 

[Lizz02]

If we recognize Tradition then we can’t very well recognize Sola Scriptura, can we? Kind of self contradicting.

By the way, welcome to CAF.

What I meant was we should both recognize Scripture and Tradition - according to our Theology lessons, these two goes hand-in-hand Sorry about that, it wasn’t clear enough. And thanks!

 

[Nicea325]

You tell me how fallible human beings wrote Holy Scripture. Was it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I believe it was. That includes Peter’s letters. However, it does not follow that Peter was therefore infallible in everything else he said or did, any more than Moses was, or Paul was, or any of the other authors were. Obviously Peter was not acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the matter referred to in Galatians. That doesn’t make his letters inerrant.

I believe that the Bible is sufficient and perspicuous.You apparently believe that it is neither. That is an impasse and renders further discussion on the matter pointless. God bless, and adios!

Nope! And evidently you lack the comprehension of infallibilty. You confuse infallibility with empeccability. So who decided which books belonged in the Bible?

EXACTLY! Then evidently Peter was infallible when He penned the Words of God.

What on earth makes you believe the Holy Spirit cannot guide bishops infallibility in matters of faith and morals even to this day? Did Jesus say all would cease once the Bible was compiled?

 

[JRKH]

This thread has gotten off topic, for which I take my share of blame.

WE do have a tendency to do that -

Back on point, I reiterate: the Bible is inerrant. It is also sufficient. Nothing is to be added or taken away from Scripture. This does not preclude exegesis and exposition, whether in writing or from the pulpit.

This is yet another place where we could get “off topic” - or not since we ARE talking about Sola Scriptura.
Assuming you are equating “Scripture” with the Bible canon, then the statement "nothing is to be added or taken away is problematic. Allow me to explain.
When the 73 book canon was settled on at the councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), the Churches in the east continued to use a slightly larger canon. The Church did not split over this issue. If the Canon of Scripture is as critical as your statement above sounds - then should have been a big problem for the Church - the ONLY Christian Church of the time.

Later, the Reformers come up with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In their view, and yours, everything else is subject to the Bible and nothing is to be changed. Yet within 100 years the Bible (unchanged at 73 books for 1000 years) is reduced to 66 books. Not through a council, which would at least be biblical, but through the actions of basically two men. Luther who moved the Deuterocanonical books to their own section between the OT and NT…and a short time later by a printer who found he could cut costs by eliminating these books all together since, as Luther taught - they were not inspired.

So now the question for you is this…Just when was this canon you speak of created? If nothing is to be added or taken away…then which canon are you speaking of? The one assembled in council or the one created by a printer trying to save money?

As to the matter of the Bible being sufficient I would agree that it is since, if read and understood properly, it will lead you into the Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[SteveVH]

What I meant was we should both recognize Scripture and Tradition - according to our Theology lessons, these two goes hand-in-hand Sorry about that, it wasn’t clear enough. And thanks!

 

[SteveVH]

I believe that the Bible is sufficient…

Where does the Bible say that?

 

[Nicea325]

Where does the Bible say that?

No where! It is another invention resulting from SS. No where is it taught or said.

 

[SteveVH]

No where! It is another invention resulting from SS. No where is it taught or said.

Yup.

 

[JRKH]

You tell me how fallible human beings wrote Holy Scripture. Was it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I believe it was. That includes Peter’s letters.

Sure - We believe this too. I don’t think anyone here has said any different.

However, it does not follow that Peter was therefore infallible in everything else he said or did, any more than Moses was, or Paul was, or any of the other authors were.

Again we are in agreement. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does.

I believe that the Bible is sufficient and perspicuous.You apparently believe that it is neither.

And apparently neither did Peter think that Scripture was perspicuous since he wrote (infallibly by your own admission) the following in relation to some of Paul’s writings:
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.
2 Peter 3:16

That is an impasse and renders further discussion on the matter pointless. God bless, and adios!

As you wish. Sorry to see you go.

Peace
James

 

[Per_Crucem]

And apparently neither did Peter think that Scripture was perspicuous since he wrote (infallibly by your own admission) the following in relation to some of Paul’s writings:
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.
2 Peter 3:16

Peace
James

Only speaking from my own perspective here. We do not claim that everything in Scripture is perspicuous.