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

[Per_Crucem]

No-not at all. The church is the final authority of intepretating scripture-not individual lay folks. The church Jesus founded was promised by the Holy Spirit to guide into all Truth. There is a reason why Jesus set up his church in such a fashion;hence an established bishopric to handle doctrinal matters,interpretation,etc. The church is our guardian against errors,personal interpretations,etc. Precisely why so many denominations popped up because that specific authority was kicked to the curb.

How do you know that the church is the final authority?

 

[Nicea325]

How do you know that the church is the final authority?

Well evidently my brother/sister in Christ, Jesus had to have trust and confidence in some entity to carry on such a authority. Scripture is clear as to where such authority lies- the church. The Holy Spirit guides the church. Evidently, the Apostles had such authority long before any word was penned in our beautiful Bibles. Do not me wrong, the CC has always venerated the Sacred Scriptures and the CC has never had a dual between Scripture and the Church.

 

[JRKH]

I know your response was long, so I don’t want to not address anything you said, but I wanted to try and cut it down, only to go through it point by point.

Actually that was the short answer…

How do you know that the evidence in Scripture confirms the hypothesis?

For this I point to 2000 years of Church history. As already mentioned, the oldest Christian Churches (RC and EO) use the magisterial model - not Sola Scriptura.

That is to say, if only the magisterium can accurately interpret Scripture and only the magisterium can tell you what Scripture is (canon), how can you make any statements about what Scripture teaches about the magisterium? If you do, isn’t that relying on your own, potentially errant, interpretation of Scripture?

Here you are making the matter artificially narrow. The magisterium is not the only one who can accurately interpret Scripture. However when there is dispute over the meaning of Scripture it is the Church, the magisterium who has the responsibility, given them by Christ, to settle the matter. This authority is firmly grounded in Scripture.

This is the great unbiblical flaw in the Sola Scriptura world as it has evolved since Luther.
Without an authoritative Church to settle disputes - the protestant world has no way of determining who is right or wrong. The result is many competing theologies.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

How do you know that the church is the final authority?

Here are two Scriptures that give me great confidence…
Eph 3:8-12
8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that** through the church** the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12 in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Tie these with Jesus command to us to “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17) and That seems like mighty strong evidence that the Church is the final authority.

Peace
James

 

[Per_Crucem]

For this I point to 2000 years of Church history. As already mentioned, the oldest Christian Churches (RC and EO) use the magisterial model - not Sola Scriptura.

I would say sola scriptura is not incompatible with a magisterial model. That is, however, another topic.

Here you are making the matter artificially narrow. The magisterium is not the only one who can accurately interpret Scripture. However when there is dispute over the meaning of Scripture it is the Church, the magisterium who has the responsibility, given them by Christ, to settle the matter. This authority is firmly grounded in Scripture.

Peace
James

Yes, however, what are you relying upon to make the statement that this is how Christ and the apostles intended it? If you say it is based simply on what is laid out in the NT, whether you appeal to your reading of Scripture or the readings of the fathers, you’re still basing it on an interpretation of Scripture. This is an epistemological question. It may be read simply as, what authority outside of the Church, that is infallible, tells you that the Church is the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Tie these with Jesus command to us to “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17) and That seems like mighty strong evidence that the Church is the final authority.

Peace
James

And there are no presuppositions in your readings of those texts that would lead you to conclude that “tell it to the church” and “listen to the church” is equivalent to “take it to the magisterium” and “listen to the magisterium?”

 

[Nicea325]

I would say sola scriptura is not incompatible with a magisterial model. That is, however, another topic.

Yes, however, what are you relying upon to make the statement that this is how Christ and the apostles intended it? If you say it is based simply on what is laid out in the NT, whether you appeal to your reading of Scripture or the readings of the fathers, you’re still basing it on an interpretation of Scripture. This is an epistemological question. It may be read simply as, what authority outside of the Church, that is infallible, tells you that the Church is the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture?

Would you please elaborate on the bolded red words?

 

[JRKH]

And there are no presuppositions in your readings of those texts that would lead you to conclude that “tell it to the church” and “listen to the church” is equivalent to “take it to the magisterium” and “listen to the magisterium?”

Nope…

Peace
James

 

[Per_Crucem]

Would you please elaborate on the bolded red words?

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.

 

[JRKH]

I would say sola scriptura is not incompatible with a magisterial model. That is, however, another topic.

Quite possibly…Especially since it is Scripture itself that points to the magisterial model.

Yes, however, what are you relying upon to make the statement that this is how Christ and the apostles intended it? If you say it is based simply on what is laid out in the NT, whether you appeal to your reading of Scripture or the readings of the fathers, you’re still basing it on an interpretation of Scripture. This is an epistemological question. It may be read simply as, what authority outside of the Church, that is infallible, tells you that the Church is the final arbiter of the meaning of Scripture?

Well as you well know everything in this will ultimately boil down to a starting point of faith. So ultimately I have a great faith and confidence that my reading of it is correct.

I’m still waiting for one of my protestant brothers or sisters to give me a comprehensive and compelling argument from Scripture for a different conclusion…Do you have one?

Peace
James

 

[Per_Crucem]

Nope…

Peace
James

Since the text doesn’t say magisterium, from what do you interpret those passages to mean magisterium? How do you know that it is that, and not simply the church as in a congregation…as the anabaptists interpret it to mean.

 

[Waynec]

Waynec;11956044:

First of all, the Bible was never written for the masses to own and read.{/quote]

By reading the history of the Bible and its compilation.

I see.

Maybe the phrase"was never written for the masses to own and read" was to me misleading. I took it to mean that we were “never” meant to read the bible. I understand that the bible was not widely read until the printing press came along and more people learned how to read.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Quite possibly…Especially since it is Scripture itself that points to the magisterial model.

Well as you well know everything in this will ultimately boil down to a starting point of faith. So ultimately I have a great faith and confidence that my reading of it is correct.

Fair enough. How does this separate you from a Protestant who has great faith that his reading of it is correct?

 

[JRKH]

Since the text doesn’t say magisterium, from what do you interpret those passages to mean magisterium? How do you know that it is that, and not simply the church as in a congregation…as the anabaptists interpret it to mean.

Two reasons…First, because “Magisterium” means “teaching authority”. It isn’t anything deep or mysterious. It is simply the teaching authority of the Church and is actually exercised in many ways and at many levels.

Second and more importantly, because Scripture speaks against the anabaptist understanding.
If the “church” is restricted to the local community the outcome in Antioch in Acts 15 would have been very different. The Church in Antioch would not have sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem for an answer because, by the “Local community” model, the community in Jerusalem would not have jurisdiction.
If the Protestant model were followed in Antioch, the community would have split into competing communities - with one part of Antioch being “Pauline” Christian and the other being “Mosaic” Christian.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Fair enough. How does this separate you from a Protestant who has great faith that his reading of it is correct?

WELL I’M RIGHT OF COURSE…

Seriously - we are both in the same boat and we rely on faith.

In these kinds of conversations, All I can do is lay out my position and my reasons. I invite others to do the same.

As I have repeatedly said, I’ve asked others for a compelling alternative reading of Scripture…and have received none.
Christ calls for unity. Paul calls for unity, Peter calls for unity, the Church (multiple locations) meets in council to resolve doctrinal difficulties, Jesus tells us to listen to the Church…
These are my reasons…

What do you have?

Peace

 

[JonNC]

I would say sola scriptura is not incompatible with a magisterial model. That is, however, another topic.

I’m not sure it is, actually, another topic. From our perspective as Lutherans, it seems the Church using scripture as the final norm is precisely what SS is. The two differences between the Lutheran model and that of the Catholic/Orthodox model is, 1) we do not hold Tradition as equal to scripture, but subject to it, and 2) the difference in ecclesiological structures.

Your thoughts, Per?

Jon

EDIT: Oops, I see you did respond to this.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m not sure it is, actually, another topic. From our perspective as Lutherans, it seems the Church using scripture as the final norm is precisely what SS is. The two differences between the Lutheran model and that of the Catholic/Orthodox model is, 1) we do not hold Tradition as equal to scripture, but subject to it, and 2) the difference in ecclesiological structures.

Your thoughts, Per?

Jon

EDIT: Oops, I see you did respond to this.

I would agree, Jon. Oddly enough, I don’t find much disagreement with the Catholic model, either. Our only disagreements are what you mentioned. Tradition being equivalent to Scripture, and the infallibility issue. FWIW, we had no disagreement that the Pope had authority; just not the authority he was claiming for himself.

 

[Per_Crucem]

WELL I’M RIGHT OF COURSE…

Seriously - we are both in the same boat and we rely on faith.

In these kinds of conversations, All I can do is lay out my position and my reasons. I invite others to do the same.

I appreciate the honest answers, JR. I understand where you are coming from about the more anabaptistic/Reformed sects and their inability to solve disputes…(maybe, I am sure they would disagree). However, our churches are authoritative, vis a vie our Confessions.

As I have repeatedly said, I’ve asked others for a compelling alternative reading of Scripture…and have received none.
Christ calls for unity. Paul calls for unity, Peter calls for unity, the Church (multiple locations) meets in council to resolve doctrinal difficulties, Jesus tells us to listen to the Church…
These are my reasons…

What do you have?

Peace

Pretty much the same. I agree that an episcopal model is the biblical one. We disagree on the nature of the papacy.

 

[JRKH]

I would agree, Jon. Oddly enough, I don’t find much disagreement with the Catholic model, either.

Our only disagreements are what you mentioned. Tradition being equivalent to Scripture, and the infallibility issue.

Except f course that “Scripture” (the accepted canon) IS Tradition. It is that which has been “traditionally” accepted by all Christian Churches - Catholic and non since it was established by the Church in council all those years ago. Granted there is some variation in the OT but the NT is identical. So - how can Tradition be subordinate to Scripture when Scripture is a product of Tradition?

And if one does not accept that the Church in her teaching is infallible, how can one confidently accept that the canon of Scripture is correct? How can one build there entire theology on a Canon that could very easily be wrong because it was assembled by and fallible group?

It is a conundrum.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I appreciate the honest answers, JR. I understand where you are coming from about the more anabaptistic/Reformed sects and their inability to solve disputes…(maybe, I am sure they would disagree). However, our churches are authoritative, vis a vie our Confessions.

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.

Pretty much the same. I agree that an episcopal model is the biblical one. We disagree on the nature of the papacy.

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

Peace
James