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

[rcwitness]

Official Interpretated passages:

Original Sin
1.) Romans 5:12

Sacrament of Baptism
2.) John 3:5

Real Presence
3.) Matt. 26:26
4.) Mk. 14:22
5.) Lk. 22:19
6.) 1Cor. 11:23

Reconciliation
7.) John 20:22

Annointing of the Sick
8.) James 5:4

Holy Orders (Ministerial Priesthood to hold Mass)
9.) Lk. 22:19
10.) 1Cor. 11:24

Apostolic Primacy
11.) Matt. 16:16
12.) John 21:15

Paz
Michael

 

[JRKH]

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.

You are welcome.
Yes - over the several years that I have invited protestants to offer biblical evidence to support their view of church structure and authority (which of course will vary) the only ones who are able to do so are ones very close to the Catholic Structure. i.e. Lutheran and Anglican.

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!

Thanks for mentioning this. You are absolutely right. We may interpret Scripture, but we need to always keep in mind to do so within the context of the entire Church catholic and that means looking at the teachings of the magisterium over the many centuries.

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

Agreed.

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

Me too. It’s important to know the definition being used for “Sola Scriptura” in any given conversation.

Peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

I agree, best book on spirituality is ‘Fulfillment of All Desire’.

We are reflecting now on Christ and the Road to Emmaus. The apostles did not recognize Him. But He explained to them everything about the meaning of Scripture.

He broke bread with them.

The Lord did not give the apostles a bible, a text. Because text is vulnerable to conflicting interpretations.

Our Lord was finally recognized in the Breaking of the Bread with the apostles — the foundation of the Mass…and then immediately disappeared…

And it is likewise up to us to recognize the Lord, Living Word of God in the Breaking of the Bread.

 

[rcwitness]

We are reflecting now on Christ and the Road to Emmaus. The apostles did not recognize Him. But He explained to them everything about the meaning of Scripture.

He broke bread with them.

The Lord did not give the apostles a bible, a text. Because text is vulnerable to conflicting interpretations.

Our Lord was finally recognized in the Breaking of the Bread with the apostles — the foundation of the Mass…and then immediately disappeared…

And it is likewise up to us to recognize the Lord, Living Word of God in the Breaking of the Bread.

This story is awsome! It certainly doesnt downplay Scripture, because Jesus used Scripture which points to Him when properly interpretated. But it also recognizes the insufficiency of Scripture alone to truly know Jesus.

We know Him through serving Him (who is sometimes a stranger, then revealed to have faith). We know Him in searching His Hidden Manna! In Christ is Hidden the whole treasure of wisdom. And so, in His Communion is a neccessary way to recognize and know Him.

Paz
Michael

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And why is the magisterium/Pope as final arbiter a better option?

First and foremost, it’s because it’s the paradigm that Christ established and promised to protect. Can you think of any better reason?

 

[Faithdancer]

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?

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.

 

[Faithdancer]

First and foremost, it’s because it’s the paradigm that Christ established and promised to protect. Can you think of any better reason?

It is a paradigm for those who interpret and elaborate Matthew 16:18-19 to mean Petrine succession.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Sure. But unlike protestant interpretations, it is an authoritative interpretation.

The Apostles left us with precious few writings (most of which is considered scripture). However, they left teachings to the succeeding generation of Christians, with the instructions that we are to listen to these authorities. SOME of this is inscripturated.

If you want to find out what John & Peter meant, and understood, ask their friends.

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?

Apostolic Authority.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

Its not the gift of Interpretation that they alone posses, but the authority to bind what is Interpreted on the whole Body.

James (JRKH) has given alot of sound Scriptural support for this faith. Where is your biblical support? Does it contradict other parts of Scripture?

Peace
Michael

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

But I can’t find any verse in the Bible that says anything like this.
Therefore, if you believe this, you have to believe that there is something outside of scriptures (your belief that God protected and kept it accurate) that is necessary for salvation. Therefore, your belief is self-refuting.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

Are you saying that the thousands of denominations that disagree are not of sound mind and intelligence, or not guided by the Holy Spirit? Or that the Holy Spirit guides them into conflicting doctrines?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is a paradigm for those who interpret and elaborate Matthew 16:18-19 to mean Petrine succession.

Among many other verses, and among the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors, who were taught by Christ Himself.

… AND who were martyred for the Faith rather than “offer a pinch of incense to Caesar.”

I think I believe them more than people who pick up a Bible without proper discipling (amathes - see 1Pe 3:16) many centuries later.

 

[Faithdancer]

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

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

 

[rcwitness]

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

This is very wrong interpretation! Peter ‘Taught’ no such thing!

Peter ‘acted’ contrary to the Gospel which he Taught!

Peter was not impeccable, nor is any pope, bishop, pastor, priest, nun, deacon, layman. His Teaching is what we follow as infallible. Just as the first converts did in Acts 2:42

Peter and those who were appointed his office, are able to ‘speak’ on behalf of the whole body of Apostles and their appointed successors (bishops).

Peace
Michael

 

[Faithdancer]

Are you saying that the thousands of denominations that disagree are not of sound mind and intelligence, or not guided by the Holy Spirit? Or that the Holy Spirit guides them into conflicting doctrines?

I just don’t see all of this disagreement that y’all keep touting. I’ve attended services at a number of Protestant congregations and read their statements of faith, which are virtually identical.

The Church universal comprises many more human beings than just those who consider themselves to be Roman Catholics. To argue that only Roman Catholics can be saved is not biblical; it is not Christian; and it is not even the view of the magisterium.

 

[Faithdancer]

This is very wrong interpretation! Peter ‘Taught’ no such thing!

Peter ‘acted’ contrary to the Gospel which he Taught!

Peter was not impeccable, nor is any pope, bishop, pastor, priest, nun, deacon, layman. His Teaching is what we follow as infallible. Just as the first converts did in Acts 2:42

Peter is able to ‘speak’ on behalf of the whole body of bishops

Peace
Michael

Do you contend that when Peter refused to break bread with the uncircumcised and influenced others to do likewise, it was all done in absolute silence? Were Peter’s actions in this instance not “teaching” others to commit the same error he was making?

 

[rcwitness]

The Church universal comprises many more human beings than just those who consider themselves to be Roman Catholics. To argue that only Roman Catholics can be saved is not biblical; it is not Christian; and it is not even the view of the magisterium.

good word

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

 

[Faithdancer]

good word

Nor would it be biblical or Christian for the leaders of any other denomination to teach that Christ lives in their house alone, I might add.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you contend that when Peter refused to break bread with the uncircumcised and influenced others to do likewise, it was all done in absolute silence? Were Peter’s actions in this instance not “teaching” others to commit the same error he was making?

What I contend is what the Scripture says:

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him fto his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.1 13 And the rest of the Jews acted insincerely along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their insincerety. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?””

We do not see Peter Teaching anything hear, but behaving in contradiction to his Teaching.

Where we do see his Teaching on this very same matter is in Acts 15, where we see the Apostles and elders coming together to settle the matter.

“After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe”

This was his Teaching, not his behavior, that we follow.

Peace
Michael