I don't get sola scriptura

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8041516

So that isn’t what you are saying?

No, that is what I’m saying.

Written things, whether they be scripture or not have only one correct meaning and that meaning is not decided by the reader.

Uh, there is the one correct meaning intended by the writer, but what is important, is whether the reader gets that meaning or not. So, ultimately, whatever meaning is decided by the reader. That is why it is necessary for the reader not to be untaught. 2Peter 3:16. Also 1Cor 3:1-9. A reader without the Spirit needs to be fed milk. A person without the Spirit needs agents to bring the faith. Needs servants through whom to believe.

Because the reader does not understand or understands imperfectly, in no way undermines the fact that God uses imperfect language to convey His will PERFECTLY.

How can something perfect be conveyed through something imperfect? Won’t the perfection be marred by the imperfect?
Besides, even if God uses imperfect language to convey His will perfectly, what difference does it make if the reader does not understand perfectly?

This question becomes moot when we quit relying on our own understanding. See 1Cor2:9-14

Precisely true. We must not rely on our own understanding. As 1 Cor 2:9-14 indicates, we must rely on the appointed teachers who do not speak with worldly wisdom but from the Spirit, teachers whose words depend upon the power of God. Paul and Apollos were such teachers. Are they found today? That is the purpose of the Church, and why Jesus founded it.

What is there about that statement that you find so enigmatic?

The statement, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? I didn’t say I found anything enigmatic about it. I submit to the deeper understanding as given by the apostles. But others, being untaught, take it only superficially, and so misunderstand it.

Two words Commit and Submit. Commit your life to the sevice of God and submit your will to His will.

I agree. Howevr, if faith is all that is required, why should service and submitting my will to His will be important?

I

think you are missing the point. V. 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, **which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ** If this doesn’t happen, if scripture doesn’t make us wise unto salvation we will never get it’s true meaning. It becomes merely an intellectual sparing match about whose right. We must allow scripture to speak to the heart. Make us wise unto salvation. Then we need to commit and submit.

Perhaps I am missing the point. I think that scripture cannot make us wise unto salvation unless we have first been taught, by teachers such as Paul and Apollos who teach with the Spirit of God behind them. 1Cor Ch 2 and 3.

I don’t get what your point is here?

This is referring to “the man of God.” Timothy is obviously a man of God. However, the Corinthians when Paul came to them were not men of God. They had to be taught first by evangelists such as Paul or Apollos, who spoke in words not taught by human wisdom, but but who spoke words taught by the Spirit.

I was thinking of Jesus warning in Matt 24:4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

and in Ephesians 4 where the reason for the gifts of the HS is put forth.

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

These are good citations. We shouldn’t be like children, tossed to and fro, mustn’t remain babes.
But, those who do remain babes, and those who are untaught, unripe, not mature, will read scripture and misunderstand it. That is why reliable teachers are important. That is the warning we must heed.

Give me an example of something that you don’t understand.

You.

 

[agent_grey]

You dodn’t get sola scriptura just like you don’t get sun worship. Sola scriptura is flat out idolatry.

All one has to do is read the bible and you will find it is not innerant and potrays an unholy God.

 

[JonNC]

You dodn’t get sola scriptura just like you don’t get sun worship. Sola scriptura is flat out idolatry.

Please support your accusation. To me, it is no more supportable than the charge of some protestants that invocation of saints is necromancy and idolatry.

All one has to do is read the bible and you will find it is not innerant and potrays an unholy God.

I’m wondering how many Catholics would agree with you that scripture, which is part of Sacred Tradition, portrays an unholy God. That must mean that Sacred Tradition does, too, a notion I totally reject.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, that is what I’m saying.

I said

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

To which you said

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

So what you are saying is that the RELIABILITY of scripture lies totally in our ability to understand it? Is that about right?

Uh, there is the one correct meaning intended by the writer, but what is important, is whether the reader gets that meaning or not. So, ultimately, whatever meaning is decided by the reader.

A meaning may be determined by the reader. The correct meaning is never determined by the reader.

That is why it is necessary for the reader not to be untaught. 2Peter 3:16. Also 1Cor 3:1-9. A reader without the Spirit needs to be fed milk. A person without the Spirit needs agents to bring the faith.

1 Corinthians 3
1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
**6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. **
8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
**11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. **

In this passage Paul starts out using the metaphor of milk to designate scripture easy to be understood. Then he switches over to the metaphor of planting. Notice vs. 6,7 Paul plants Appolos waters, nurtures, but it is God that gives the increase, not man. In v. 10 Paul switches metaphors again to that of a builder. Check out v.11. This tells us the ONLY thing that Peter, Paul, Appolos, or any other gospel preacher is preaching about. Either by word of mouth or epistle.

Here’s another parable about planting.

Matt13
18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Notice in v.23when the WORD is recieved into good ground, a receptive and submissive heart, the hearer understands and bears fruit. This totally without

servants through whom to believe.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

How can something perfect be conveyed through something imperfect? Won’t the perfection be marred by the imperfect?
Besides, even if God uses imperfect language to convey His will perfectly, what difference does it make if the reader does not understand perfectly?

Matt13:23 above

Precisely true. We must not rely on our own understanding. As 1 Cor 2:9-14 indicates, we must rely on the appointed teachers who do not speak with worldly wisdom but from the Spirit, teachers whose words depend upon the power of God. Paul and Apollos were such teachers. Are they found today? That is the purpose of the Church, and why Jesus founded it.

That teacher is not man, but God 1Cor2:10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

The statement, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? I didn’t say I found anything enigmatic about it. I submit to the deeper understanding as given by the apostles. But others, being untaught, take it only superficially, and so misunderstand it.

How can this statement “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” taken superficially?

I agree. Howevr, if faith is all that is required, why should service and submitting my will to His will be important?

I don’t understand why you are asking this question. Do you not think that faith or submission to God’s will are necessary for salvation?

Perhaps I am missing the point. I think that scripture cannot make us wise unto salvation unless we have first been taught, by teachers such as Paul and Apollos who teach with the Spirit of God behind them. 1Cor Ch 2 and 3.

So you don’t agree with 1Cor3:7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Or

2Tim3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

This is referring to “the man of God.” Timothy is obviously a man of God. However, the Corinthians when Paul came to them were not men of God. They had to be taught first by evangelists such as Paul or Apollos, who spoke in words not taught by human wisdom, but but who spoke words taught by the Spirit.

Ya, everyone needs to be told about Jesus.

These are good citations. We shouldn’t be like children, tossed to and fro, mustn’t remain babes.
But, those who do remain babes, and those who are untaught, unripe, not mature, will read scripture and misunderstand it. That is why reliable teachers are important. That is the warning we must heed.

Ya, everyone needs to be told about Jesus.

You.

I was refering to scripture, but you knew that. So, what is there about me that you do not understand

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8069787 I said

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

To which you said

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

So what you are saying is that the RELIABILITY of scripture lies totally in our ability to understand it? Is that about right?

No, I said, quoting from above: The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not. My above explanations are clear. I don’t know what you mean by the reliability of scripture, but this is what I mean–the church teaches that scripture is inspired by God, and if God is reliable, his scriptures are reliable. Only if God is not reliable, would His scriptures not be reliable.

I don’t know why we have to belabour this point. But here’s the point: In my opinion, your interpretations of scriptures are not reliable. In my opinion, you, being untaught, have twisted the otherwise reliable scriptures.

A meaning may be determined by the reader. The correct meaning is never determined by the reader.

Right. The correct meaning is determined by the church.

1 Corinthians 3
1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
**6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. **
8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
**11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. **

In this passage Paul starts out using the metaphor of milk to designate scripture easy to be understood. Then he switches over to the metaphor of planting. Notice vs. 6,7 Paul plants Appolos waters, nurtures, but it is God that gives the increase, not man. In v. 10 Paul switches metaphors again to that of a builder. Check out v.11. This tells us the ONLY thing that Peter, Paul, Appolos, or any other gospel preacher is preaching about. Either by word of mouth or epistle.

No, Paul is not talking about scripture in his milk metaphor. He is talking about what he spoke to them, verbally. Not scripture at all. Heck, the Corinthians didn’t have the concept Christian scripture yet. So, Paul had not fed the “milk” via scripture, but by his spoken teaching. The Corinthians were still too carnal to appreciate meat.

Yes, God does the increase, but note that an evangelist was required first, to plant, then to water.

Verse 11? That tells us that since the Spirt of God knows the thoughts of God, then because Paul and Apollos received the Spirit, what they are saying is not from the world, but from the thoughts of God.

Here’s another parable about planting.

Matt13
18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Notice in v.23when the WORD is recieved into good ground, a receptive and submissive heart, the hearer understands and bears fruit. This totally without

“servants through whom to believe.”

???

Nope, it is with servants through whom to believe. Obviously, because how could a person in the above parable “heareth the word” without some servant to preach it to him. In order to hear, there must be someone speaking. I mean, like, duh.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8069799

Matt13:23 above.

Yes, he who understands will bear fruit.

That teacher is not man, but God 1Cor2:10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Well, what 1Cor 2:10 is getting at is that the teachings of Paul and Apollos were revealed to them by the Spirit, hence what Paul and Apollos taught were the deep things of God. God did not reveal them to the Corinthians directly, but through Paul and Apollos. The “us” in verse 10 refers to Paul and Apollos only, and does not include the Corinthians, nor anyone else.

How can this statement “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” taken superficially?

There are those who only look at the word “believe” and do not realize that inherent in the word “believe” is the promise to commit and submit, and to serve. They think, “I believe!” and therefore they are saved and guaranteed entrance to heaven no matter what. Or, at least that is the impression I get when listening to their rhetoric.

I don’t understand why you are asking this question. Do you not think that faith or submission to God’s will are necessary for salvation?

The question I asked was, if faith alone is all that is needed for salvation, why bother to serve and submit?

Of course you and I know that submission to God’s will is necessary for salvation. So my question was rhetorical, to those who claim “faith alone.”

I would, though, like an answer from them, if they are so inclined.

So you don’t agree with 1Cor3:7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

I think Paul’s purpose in this verse is to avoid the development of a personality cult around himself. He was already frustrated that some were saying, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas. They all should be folllowing God; therefore Paul wanted to draw attention away from himself here, and emphasize God. Which is not to say that the human evangelists are not important, far from it. After all, Jesus commissioned them Himself.

2Tim3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Again, Timothy had been taught the OT scriptures from childhood, and so knew them well, and they were able to make him wise. The “thee” in this verse refers to Timothy, and not to anyone else who happens to pick up scripture and read it.

I was refering to scripture, but you knew that. So, what is there about me that you do not understand

I’m sorry, Richard, I did know that, but I couldn’t resist. Although I don’t always understand your use of scripture. Perhaps it is because we regard scripture from two different positions. These positions include the questions of what is scripture for? Who does scripture belong to? Who is it written to? Whose job is it to interpret scripture? And so on.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, I said, quoting from above: The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not. My above explanations are clear. I don’t know what you mean by the reliability of scripture, but this is what I mean–the church teaches that scripture is inspired by God, and if God is reliable, his scriptures are reliable. Only if God is not reliable, would His scriptures not be reliable.

Ok let’s go through it again. I said

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

To which you said

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

So, you are agreeing with my ascessment that you say the oral tradition is more reliable than the word of God, BECAUSE it is easier to understand.

But now you say that isn’t what you are saying. You say your explanations are clear, but I find them confusing.

I don’t know why we have to belabour this point. But here’s the point:

What point? The one we are belaboring?

In my opinion, your interpretations of scriptures are not reliable. In my opinion, you, being untaught, have twisted the otherwise reliable scriptures.

Which one?

Right. The correct meaning is determined by the church.

The correct meaning is determined by God.

No, Paul is not talking about scripture in his milk metaphor. He is talking about what he spoke to them, verbally. Not scripture at all. Heck, the Corinthians didn’t have the concept Christian scripture yet. So, Paul had not fed the “milk” via scripture, but by his spoken teaching. The Corinthians were still too carnal to appreciate meat.

Paul is talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is contained in scripture. Paul preached the gospel to them. The same gospel that is contained in scripture.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Yes, God does the increase, but note that an evangelist was required first, to plant, then to water.

This is exactly the point that I am making. Pauls job is to preach the gospel. I never implied that the Gospel was not preached, but it is God who gives understanding and convicts the heart.

Verse 11? That tells us that since the Spirt of God knows the thoughts of God, then because Paul and Apollos received the Spirit, what they are saying is not from the world, but from the thoughts of God.

Wow, and you accuse me of wresting scripture?

1Cor.3
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

This is mearly saying that they are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and none other. Pretty much the same thing being said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

???

Nope, it is with servants through whom to believe. Obviously, because how could a person in the above parable “heareth the word” without some servant to preach it to him. In order to hear, there must be someone speaking. I mean, like, duh.

I guess you didn’t read all of my comment I said

Notice in v.23when the WORD is recieved into good ground, a receptive and submissive heart, the hearer understands and bears fruit. This totally without “servants through whom to believe.”

The word is recieved into the good ground of a receptive and a submissive heart FROM THE PREACHER but the understanding and fruit bearing come by the grace of God.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Yes, he who understands will bear fruit.

Well, what 1Cor 2:10 is getting at is that the teachings of Paul and Apollos were revealed to them by the Spirit, hence what Paul and Apollos taught were the deep things of God. God did not reveal them to the Corinthians directly, but through Paul and Apollos. The “us” in verse 10 refers to Paul and Apollos only, and does not include the Corinthians, nor anyone else.

Yes Paul is talking about himself, but is is also clear that that same Spirit is available to all men.

1Cor.2
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

There are those who only look at the word “believe” and do not realize that inherent in the word “believe” is the promise to commit and submit, and to serve. They think, “I believe!” and therefore they are saved and guaranteed entrance to heaven no matter what. Or, at least that is the impression I get when listening to their rhetoric
The question I asked was, if faith alone is all that is needed for salvation, why bother to serve and submit?

Of course you and I know that submission to God’s will is necessary for salvation. So my question was rhetorical, to those who claim “faith alone.”

I would, though, like an answer from them, if they are so inclined…

Ok

I think Paul’s purpose in this verse is to avoid the development of a personality cult around himself. He was already frustrated that some were saying, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas. They all should be folllowing God; therefore Paul wanted to draw attention away from himself here, and emphasize God. Which is not to say that the human evangelists are not important, far from it. After all, Jesus commissioned them Himself.

Don’t think I ever implied that evangelists are not important, but Paul here is simply stating the facts. And that is that God makes the increase. He is the one that convicts the heart and His Spirit is the one who leads to understanding.

Again, Timothy had been taught the OT scriptures from childhood, and so knew them well, and they were able to make him wise. The “thee” in this verse refers to Timothy, and not to anyone else who happens to pick up scripture and read it.

So, you don’t thik that scripture can make us wise unto salvation? Only Timothy?

I’m sorry, Richard, I did know that, but I couldn’t resist. Although I don’t always understand your use of scripture. Perhaps it is because we regard scripture from two different positions. These positions include the questions of what is scripture for? Who does scripture belong to? Who is it written to? Whose job is it to interpret scripture? And so on.

My position is that scripture was written to us and for us to make US wise unto salvation. It is our job to interpret scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit. So what’s your position? And I still would like to hear a scripture that you don’t understand.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

My position is that scripture was written to us and for us to make US wise unto salvation. It is our job to interpret scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit.

No, it is not our job to interpret Scripture. The interpretation is already there. The full message was given to the Apostles by Christ. This is the reason why He created a Church in the first place. He entrust His Church with the message. He gave the Church the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that followers of Christ will trust that that which the Church teaches is that which Christ Himself, Emmanuel, taught. An eternal message kept through all times and all places.

Notice a few things there. I did not mention once the Bible or Oral Tradition. I was just talking about the message. You and I can both agree to everything I just said. You probably realized that you are wrong and I am right; that is, that the interpretation is already there and it is not our job to do it. The Church is where Christ’s teachings are at. He built a Church for a reason. That reason is to provide those who seek with answers they can trust.

Which came first: the Church or the Bible? The Church. So, why would you trust the Bible OVER Christ’s Church? “Because I do not trust man with my salvation.” Well, neither do I, but keep in mind that the Church is Christ’s Body. His Holy Spirit is with the Church. There are Christ, the Holy Spirit and His Bride, the Church (cf. Rev 21-22, esp. 22:17). He will not let His Bride become the minister of lies.People in her might lie, but she will never lie. Christ promised this when He gave Peter the keys.

Now, do Catholics trust the Church OVER the Bible? Certainly not. What they do trust is the Church over their INTERPRETATION of the Bible. I would hope that you do not trust your own interpretation. Well, you may claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and I know you believe without a doubt that that is true and rightly so… But what about another person (Catholic or not) making the same exact claim with the same convictions as you but with a complete opposite interpretation. For example, “Oh ok… He does not mean to actually eat His Body like we would an apple. He means it metaphorically.” Somebody else reads the same passage and says, “Oh ok… He really means to eat His Body like an apples. This is literal.”

How do we know what the answer is? Go to the Bible. Yes, but whose interpretation do we trust? The Holy Spirit’s. Yes, but there are two opposing interpretations based on the claim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit. Now what? Find a common ground. The Bible says God created a Church. This is a simple fact that is plainly stated. What does the Bible say about the Church? It is His Body. But He IS the Truth! His Body is sinless and pure! What is more pure than the whole Truth! The Church is His Body. His Body is the Truth. Therefore, the Church cannot be wrong since it is His Body and His Body is the Truth. (By law of non-contradiction, we cannot say that the Church is the Truth.)

You may say, “Well, where did you go to first? The Bible!” Well, true enough. But why? Because there is one thing that most Christians can agree on: the Bible. It would be useless for me tell you “The Church teaches this” and expect you to agree just as much as it would be useless for you to give us a Bible verse and expect us to agree with your interpretation. So, we go to common ground. What can we agree on? Christ created a Church. From there, we can reasonably arrive at the fact that the Church has the answers to fundamental disputes.

**Notice another thing here: I never said “Catholic Church.” The fact that it is the Church that can answer these things is undeniable. Sure, I did not cite one single Bible verse, but what is there to disagree with? That God created a Church? That the Church is His Body? That He would keep His Body pure and free from lies? That the Church came before the Bible? That the Church has the answers?

If it is the last one, why would she not have all the answers? How could she be free from lies, but not able to speak the Truth? Christ sent His Apostles (the foundation of the Church in Revelations somewhere) to do exactly that. Why would it stop?**

This is why I am fully convinced that Sola Scriptura is practically useless. It is apparent that you trust your own interpretation as your final authority. That is why you give a Bible verse and leave it at that. You expect us to succumb to your interpretation. You will probably disagree, but that does not matter. It is still true. You may be upset at that statement, but just go read your comments and you will see what I am talking about.

There are many interpretations of the Bible, but only one is right: Christ’s. And that is not even “an interpretation”. It is the Truth. He is the Word of God. He is the Truth. He entrusted to His Apostles the message of salvation, the Truth of eternal life. The Apostles are clearly stated in Revelations as the foundation of the Church. He laid the Truth inside the foundation. Truth, Church, foundation, and then a pillar… Sound familiar?

Although I did not use too much Bible, this is purely biblical with a little bit of reason attached. This is the position you should take. It is not our job to interpret, it is our job to listen. You may say that this is all just my interpretation. I would reply, “Is it really? Can any Christian reasonably disagree with the reasoning process here? Even if the conclusion is still disagreed upon, the reasoning here is very logical. There is not a single step that any true Christian can disagree with.” Is this bias? Ehh… Perhaps, but bias for what? I never mentioned the Catholic Church.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

My position is that scripture was written to us and for us to make US wise unto salvation. It is our job to interpret scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Also, the fact that you claim that it is our job to interpret Scripture fully disproves Sola Scriptura and Scripture itself.

If it were our job to interpret Scripture, that would mean that the entire message was not there. It would also mean that Scripture would have to be subordinate to human reason if it were our job to interpret it.

If it were here to make us wise unto salvation, how wise would it really be if fallible men were attempting to the interpret the message of salvation? Not too wise in my eyes.

Your two statements prove a point I was trying to make. Most Sola Scriptura advocates advocate their own interpretation of Scripture, making Scripture subordinate to them. If you are mad at that statement, you should be! You are saying that YOU must interpret it to make yourself wise unto salvation. “But it is through the power of the Holy Spirit!” But you just said it is our job. What about the person disagreeing with the other person on an opposing side but both are “through the power of the Holy Spirit”?

For you, it is all about your interpretation of the Bible, and certainly not the Bible itself. As a matter of fact, your responses show that Sola Scriptura is not what you actually practice. You practice your interpretation over Scripture. “Scripture says this and this is my interpretation of it.” You believe your interpretation and not necessarily what the Bible says.

Before you start making comebacks, I will have you know that you are wrong. I do not follow “man’s interpretation” (like you) or follow “the Church’s interpretation” or anything similar. My belief is this: the Church speaks and will speak the same Truth it has spoken for years to come. She has known the Truth always from the beginning. Christ spoke the Truth to the Apostles and all they did was share it with others and it was passed down. That is my belief. The Word of God is not up for interpretation. The Word of God is the Word of God. The Truth has been spoken. Its message has been handed down. It is unchanging and it is what it is.

Your position (as I have made clear) is wrong. Sola Scriptura is very flawed… Well, in the way you are explaining it anyway. Some Sola Scriptura advocates explain it in a way almost exactly the same way as I would explain Tradition and authority, so I have no qualms with those. Tradition and some explanations of “Sola Scriptura” are virtually the same exact thing minus a few words here and there. (This is very similar to Faith Alone vs. Faith and Works… Some describe Faith Alone in almost the same exact way Faith and Works would be explained. There is just a different title.)

Disclaimer: I never once said that interpreting is bad. It is just that when we trust our own interpretation as what is doctrinally true, then I have qualms. Especially when it is opposed to the Church… Christ clearly commands us to go to the Church.

When I read my Bible a whole bunch, I interpreted all the time. (Granted I am having a little trouble in my own Christian life right now, but who cares about my problems?) But, I made sure it was never contrary to Church teaching. And if it was a personal message about something in the Bible, why consult the Church if it is personal? How can something personal be opposed to anything the Church teaches? The Church respects personal spirituality and advocates reading the Bible for our own sake. We all make interpretations for our lives. “Rise and do not be afraid” might be interpreted to me much more differently than you and even more by someone else. None are wrong. They are all true for our selves though.

So, I thought I would add that before somebody charged me with either making my own interpretations or saying that interpreting is bad.

 

[LaSalle]

I too don’t understand SS. But what baffles me more is how something so untenable and unbiblical is believed by so many intelligent and sincere people.

These sincere Christians cannot even agree on what the term and doctrine of SS means! How do they then persist in believing that this IS the way God wants us to understand Him through the bible? Can’t they see the chaos and untenability of the system?

In any case, exnihilo does ask some good questions.

I dont get it either. The more I’ve thought about it the less sense it makes to me. And I notice that really no one really lives by it in a strict sense. Of course the idea really needs to be defined. The term sola scriptura itself, like many, can represent an idea that is very complex. The term might mean different things to different people. But the typical quick explanation of the term makes no sense to me.

I might turn the question around and ask, for a Catholic what happens if you disagree on the meaning of some passage of scripture and the church’s official teaching? If you truly believe in a different understanding what transpires in your mind regarding that teaching if you are to believe the teachings of the church? How does one conform their beliefs, assuming they have an honest intention to do so, if they truly believe something else?

You do see many Catholics not following church teaching, I’d say on the top of that list would be their refusal to refrain from artificial contraceptives. The church teaches that it is morally wrong and thus sinful, but we still get many Catholics using contraceptives.

Bottom line, I think that’s what happens to Catholics if they believed something else. i) They know they go against Church teaching, ii) they just don’t care.

I guess the more teaching they oppose the higher the chance they will defect.

Personally? I’d say what Peter would say when Jesus asked if the Apostles would leave Him because of that hard teaching in John 6:68 “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

I’m pretty sure St Pete didn’t fully understand what Jesus meant too, but he subjected his intellect to God. I will too.

Of course, I have found that if I actually studied why the Church teaches something seemingly odd at first, my study always satisfies me intellectually and I do come away convinced, and in most cases awed at the strong logic, wisdom and understanding of the Church. Hey, afterall, Jesus set it up and it is guided by the Holy Spirit till the end of time, why would I expect anything less?

If you have faith in Jesus, have faith in the Church He established and promised to guide till the end of time. Jesus told me to listen to men - He told the Apostles “Whoever listens to you, listens to me”.

We all listen to men, protestants listen to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Swaggart, Camping et al, who told them to read the bible for themselves, reject the authority of the men whom Jesus put in place and decide for yourselves what you believe sincerely to be true; I listen to the men Jesus put in place … and until He comes back again in PERSON to tell me otherwise … I’ll continue to listen to them.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I too don’t understand SS. But what baffles me more is how something so untenable and unbiblical is believed by so many intelligent and sincere people.

These sincere Christians cannot even agree on what the term and doctrine of SS means! How do they then persist in believing that this IS the way God wants us to understand Him through the bible? Can’t they see the chaos and untenability of the system?

In any case, exnihilo does ask some good questions.

You do see many Catholics not following church teaching, I’d say on the top of that list would be their refusal to refrain from artificial contraceptives. The church teaches that it is morally wrong and thus sinful, but we still get many Catholics using contraceptives.

Bottom line, I think that’s what happens to Catholics if they believed something else. i) They know they go against Church teaching, ii) they just don’t care.

I guess the more teaching they oppose the higher the chance they will defect.

Personally? I’d say what Peter would say when Jesus asked if the Apostles would leave Him because of that hard teaching in John 6:68 “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

I’m pretty sure St Pete ddn’t fully understand what Jesus meant too, but he subjected his intellect to God. I will too.

Of course, I have found that if I actually studied why the Church teaches something seemingly odd at first, my study always satisfies me intellectually and I do come away convinced, and in most cases awed at the strong logic, wisdom and understanding of the Church. Hey, afterall, Jesus set it up and it is guided by the Holy Spirit till the end of time, why would I expect anything less?

If you have faith in Jesus, have faith in the Church He established and promised to guide till the end of time. Jesus told me to listen to men - He told the Apostles “Whoever listens to you, listens to me”.

We all listen to men, protestants listen to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Swaggart, Camping et al, who told them to read the bible yourself, reject the authority of the men whom Jesus put in place and decide for yourselves what you believe sincerely to be true; I listen to the men Jesus put in place … and until He comes back again in PERSON to tell me otherwise … I’ll continue to listen to them.

You just said what I said with more elaboration, but with less words and posts… I admire that. Pithy!

…and more intelligently

 

[LaSalle]

Why, thank you. I try.

 

[exnihilo]

Personally? I’d say what Peter would say when Jesus asked if the Apostles would leave Him because of that hard teaching in John 6:68 “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

I’m pretty sure St Pete didn’t fully understand what Jesus meant too, but he subjected his intellect to God. I will too.

First, thank you for answering. I am very interested in this because it is something I struggle with understanding.

It is clear the the disciples did not always, maybe often, understand. But they were loyal and followed, though even they were not perfect in their obedience. It seems like our modern culture is set up to completely reject the value of obedience. We have destroyed the authority of the family and with our libertine attitude destroyed the authority of culture. Maybe conforming your intellect is just a more difficult thing to do when you have been inculcated not to.

Of course, I have found that if I actually studied why the Church teaches something seemingly odd at first, my study always satisfies me intellectually and I do come away convinced, and in most cases awed at the strong logic, wisdom and understanding of the Church.

I would tend to agree. I have never found a problem with Catholic doctrine when I’ve studied it. Where I struggle is I can read Catholic doctrine and be convinced but then read some other doctrine and find it also convincing. Where I struggle is knowing who to believe. I’d have to say I often find Catholic doctrine more plausible and complete. And in one sense that should be so because even my Protestant Church held to much of that doctrine.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8073512

Ok let’s go through it again. I said

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This sounds like you are saying that oral tradition of the Apostles is more reliable than the written word of God. Is that what you are saying?

To which you said

You know, you’re right, that is what I’m saying! The oral tradition is understandable, but the meaning of the written word of God is always under dispute. The written word of God is of course reliable, but our personal interpretations of it are not.

QUOTE]
We will start over. Yes, in a sense oral tradition is more reliable than scripture. What I mean is that oral tradition is more reliably UNDERSTOOD. Otherwise they are both equally reliable as they both come from God. Oral tradition initially comes from God through the Church, in the same way as scripture. But our UNDERSTANDING of scripture is not always reliable, as evidenced by our very conversation here.

This needs to be repeated: Oral tradition originates from God, was given to the Church and protected by her. Oral tradition is NOT man-made. Oral tradition is the context in which scripture was written and is to be understood. Oral tradition is the teaching in 2Peter3:16. The “untaught” are those untaught in oral tradition. Oral tradition is the teaching of the apostles prior to the writing of scripture. And that teaching, Paul is very careful to point out in the second chapter of 1Corinthians, comes from God, not from man.

The correct meaning is determined by God.

Precisely. That is why God guides the Church.

Paul is talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is contained in scripture. Paul preached the gospel to them. The same gospel that is contained in scripture.

You were improperly trying to equate the “milk” Paul mentions in 1Cor3:2 with the parts of scripture hard to understand. But since this his own preaching and not scripture, the connection can’t be made. Christian scripture didn’t exist yet. Paul preached the gospel, but Paul did not write any of the gospels, others did that.

The “parts of scripture hard to understand” is from 2Peter3:16, where Peter warns that the untaught misunderstand the parts hard to understand of Paul’s letters, as they do the rest of the scriptures. Peter is talking about Paul’s letters, not Paul’s preaching of the gospel.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:39 actually begins, “YOU search the scriptures…” Jesus was speaking to the Jews, who were indeed searching the OT scriptures, but misunderstanding them.
I am disturbed that you omitted the first word of the quote; I suppose by doing that the purpose was to make Jesus’ statement sound like a command for us to search the scriptures.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Again, we must remember the scriptures referred to here are OT scriptures. Okay, what were the Bereans doing? They had listened to Paul’s preaching about Jesus and how He had fulfilled OT prophecies. Then the Bereans went to their OT scrolls to affirm that the parts Paul talked about were actually there, and said what he said. (Remember, no one had pocket bibles in those days! Nor were there numbered chapters and verses, neither.)

This passage about the Bereans is sometimes used to support sola scriptura, but it does the very opposite. Because with scripture alone they would have never learned about Jesus. They had to have something more, beyond scriptrure (Paul’s preaching) to learn about Him.

This is exactly the point that I am making. Pauls job is to preach the gospel. I never implied that the Gospel was not preached, but it is God who gives understanding and convicts the heart.

Okay. Still, it was human “servants through whom you believed.” 1Cor3:5, NASB

Wow, and you accuse me of wresting scripture?

The scripture wrested is 1Cor 2:11, “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.”

Okay, what does this mean? To me it means no one else knows a person’s thoughts, except the person, the spirit within him. The same with God, only God knows His own thoughts, except the Spirit of God, which is also God.

Now, why is this important? Look at verses 12 and 13. Paul and Apollos had received the Spirit of God, and so were not speaking words of men, but of God!

That is what the whole chapter 2 is about, convincing the Corinthians they were speaking from God, and not from men.

1Cor.3
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

This is mearly saying that they are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and none other. Pretty much the same thing being said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Okay.

I guess you didn’t read all of my comment I said

Notice in v.23when the WORD is recieved into good ground, a receptive and submissive heart, the hearer understands and bears fruit. This totally without “servants through whom to believe.”

The word is recieved into the good ground of a receptive and a submissive heart FROM THE PREACHER but the understanding and fruit bearing come by the grace of God

I suppose, but notice the word has to fall upon good ground first, one with a receptive and submissive heart. Otherwise, according to these verses, there is no understanding, the grace of God notwithstanding.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Richard Kastner;8073559 Yes Paul is talking about himself, but is is also clear that that same Spirit is available to all men.

1Cor.2
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

I don’t see how verses 12 and 13 support the idea that the Spirit is available to all men. Maybe He is, but if so, verses 12 and 13 do not say so.

How about 14 and 15? Maybe. But now we have the question, how does a natural man become a spiritual man? By reading scripture? That can’t be, since back then there were no Christian scriptures to read, yet apparently there were spiritual men anyway

Don’t think I ever implied that evangelists are not important, but Paul here is simply stating the facts. And that is that God makes the increase. He is the one that convicts the heart and His Spirit is the one who leads to understanding.

Okay, for what it’s worth.

So, you don’t thik that scripture can make us wise unto salvation? Only Timothy?

2Peter3:16 is scriptural proof that scripture alone does not guarantee us wise unto salvation, but can do the very opposite. However, those of us who are like Timothy, a learned man of God, scripture can make us wise unto salvation. In particular, scripture is an evangelistic tool for those who are men of God.

What these verses exclude is the unlearned, non-Christian person who reads a Gideon bible in his hotel room.

My position is that scripture was written to us and for us to make US wise unto salvation. It is our job to interpret scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit. So what’s your position? And I still would like to hear a scripture that you don’t understand.

This question is very important, and the key to the whole controversy.

GreggAlvarez has written an excellent and thorough analysis of this whole question. It needs to be read with an understanding and submissive heart. I hope it’s message does not fall on hard ground.

The sola scripturist starts with scripture, and derives church. Catholics (Orthodox and all of the ancient, universal church) start with church and derive scripture. The inverse process is done by sola scripturists.

That is, for us, church exists first, and then from church, scripture comes to be. Scripture has its home within the church, and is only understood within the church. The church’s job is to teach, and within that teaching, scripture is understood. It is not really the individual’s job to interpret scripture, but the church’s job. After all, it has been only in extremely rare circumstances in the history of the world, that an individual has been in a position to have a copy of scriptures on his own, and also to be able to read them.

In salvation history, the people of God always existed first, and then after a long time, they wrote scripture, by themselves, and to themselves and for themselves, under God’s inspiration. Not to outsiders. So, if you are an outsider, scripture is not for you.

How do you become an insider? Peter answers, “Repent, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[1voice]

I think maybe a question for these “Bible Believers” (who are we really talking about here, anyways? Can we name a group, a person, some sort of example?) is how far do we allow tradition to dictate our worship and belief and why? (that is, what are the justifying criteria for practice of a given “tradition”)

Also, whose words should we be listening to according to this quote? Looking at it in context, it strikes me that a valid interpretation might consist of the “us” signifying the apostles themselves and Jesus Christ. “Tradition” then becomes a question of the validity of apostolic succession, which is beyond the purposes of this thread.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the importance of liturgy and sacraments and many of the practices of the early church, but it is a fallacy to think that just because the Bible says we should hold to the importance of tradition, this quote therefore justifies any particular traditions handed down from any particular entity other than the apostles and in particular, Paul. So the question is: what does this quote actually command us to do or believe in a concrete, particular sense? Which particular traditions is it referring to?

That is a very good point and very good question in my opinion.
Figuring out what the rules are and why is a challenge.
a few examples come to mind …
I remember when it was cut in stone that … If the Mass wasnt in Latin …God wasnt in it. Some people still feel that way.
Eating meat on Friday was a sin. The rules about fasting before receiving communion were changed and changed again. The rules and traditions related to the myriad of scapulars. Are indulgences really Monopoly money?
Sometimes I feel traditions are like speed traps set up by cops with a quota to catch people on the way home from Saturday evening Mass.

 

[amber_lux]

exnihilo;:

I wish I had your same optimism for the power of the scripture.

• The Little Red Book;
• The Little Green Book;
• Mein Kamp;
• The Communist Manifesto

Just a couple of books whose content convinced people to adopt the philosophy advocated by the content of the book.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

It is humans who READ scripture, COMMUNICATION FROM SCRIPTURE however is communication FROM God and as such is perfect.

Are you willing to say that Tim May’s translation of the Bible is perfect?

Or more to the point, would you be willing to use Tim May’s translation of the Bible during, say, a Sunday School lesson?

Amber