I hoping to discover a consensus among sola scriptura advocates

[JonNC]

I left my parents religion, pursuing others -and becoming quite anti-Catholic, only to return 25 years later, **having found out the Church learned a lot while I was gone ** -to paraphrase Mark Twain. I came back after much study, as well as much good-natured arguing with “sola-scripturalists” including JWs. The fact that the Church at least has history on her side didn’t hurt either so I can certainly give a nod to any affirmation of the importance of apostolic succession.

Do JW’s consider themselves SS? I didn’t know that.
I really didn’t mean the question as more than rhetorical, but I appreciate your sharing your journey, and give thanks for where the Spirit has guided you.

I found your Mark Twain paraphrase interesting (and funny, too). It kind of answers our joint question as to how does one decide - by listening and prayer, not by interpreting for oneself. I think you and I agree on this.

Jon

 

[tester]

I just don’t think I would want to belong to a church that didn’t claim to teach error free doctrine.

And yet I would not want to belong to any church where ANY man claimed to teach error free doctrine. By that I mean claiming to be teaching absolutly error free on ALL points of doctrine.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;7170426]First, Joe, I don’t think you can resolve the issue.

I don’t think so either Jon, and that is why I don’t believe, anymore, that sola scriptura was/is the will of God, unless of course, we embrace your definition of SS regarding the fact that Jesus entrusted people with the authority to interpret and teach, via the guidance of the HS. The bible doesn’t support SS; quite the opposite. The bible supports your position regarding church leadership interpreting and teaching. I am not gonna ask you which church is forever guided by the HS into all truth because you said: I don’t know, but I would like to ask you one thing: do you believe that the HS is still guiding one of these churches, (who knows which one) - in the world today, into all truth, and will continue to do so in spite of sin, division, schism, private interpretation of scripture - until Jesus’ return?

You’re normally not facetious. My expectation is you always debate honestly

.

Absolutely!!! But for some reason certain people don’t realize that I am respectful of all beliefs, regardless of the subject, and am only searching for truth in an amicable and honest manner. I hate it when the debate gets ugly; it’s no fun when that happens.

Be carefule with the “Bible Alone” phrase, as that has come to mean in more modern times an outright rejection of any document, teaching, etc. that is not virtually verbatim from scripture.

Doesn’t sola scriptura mean: bible alone??? You and I have run across people here at CAF that believe, in the strictest sense: if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed, and I respect their right to believe that, but I don’t get it.

This is where I get confused - for the simple fact that every sola scriptura advocate does just that very thing.

I’m certain there are those who won’t.

Maybe you are right.

 

[joe370]

And yet I would not want to belong to any church where ANY man claimed to teach error free doctrine. By that I mean claiming to be teaching absolutly error free on ALL points of doctrine.

Fair enough. Catch 22…So, the idea of the infallible HS guiding very fallible church leaders into all truth until Jesus returns, just as the HS did with the very fallible apostles, is NOT a possibility for you?

 

[joe370]

=tester;7170466]I think i see where your confusion lies:

You correctly state that " word of God is supreme and infallible".
I’m sure you apply the same infallibility to the New AND Old Testaments.

Yup…

But then you assume that God must provide " an inspired interpreter " “with the God given authority, via the guidance of the HS to use reason, experience, tradition and scripture to infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach”

Makes good sense to me…What good is truth if we can’t know, with certainty, what that truth is???

If your assumption is true: then who had the authourity to “infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach” the Torah in 1000BC? (about 500 years after it was written) or who was " an inspired interpreter" of the OT in 200 BC?

I don’t know tester! Sorry I couldn’t be of any help…What I do know (or at least have faith in) - is that Jesus founded a church on Kepha and the rest of the apostles and prophets, (and said that even our worst enemy won’t be able to defeat His church, and what a better achievement on Satan’s part than to alter the teachings of Jesus?) - of which He is the divine Rock/Cornerstone, holding His the whole thing together, and I believe that Jesus is protecting His church from within and without, making sure that the members of His church, or otherwise, do not alter the truth regarding all that He taught, and He does this, as per the bible, via the ever presence of the Holy Spirit.

 

[tester]

Doesn’t sola scriptura mean: bible alone???

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura** is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion**. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)
."** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible**,”​

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):The holy and inspired** Scriptures are fully sufficient** for the proclamation of the truth.

St Augustine:
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7170520]I don’t think so either Jon, and that is why I don’t believe, anymore, that sola scriptura was/is the will of God, unless of course, we embrace your definition of SS regarding the fact that Jesus entrusted people with the authority to interpret and teach, via the guidance of the HS.

Correct. Keith Mathison describes it as Tradition 1 here:
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

The bible doesn’t support SS; quite the opposite. The bible supports your position regarding church leadership interpreting and teaching.

Yes. And since it isn’t explicit in the Bible, it is safe to say it isn’t a doctrine, and those who don’t practice it are not in jeopardy regarding salvation.

I am not gonna ask you which church is forever guided by the HS into all truth because you said: I don’t know, but I would like to ask you one thing: do you believe that the HS is still guiding one of these churches, (who knows which one) - in the world today, into all truth, and will continue to do so in spite of sin, division, schism, private interpretation of scripture - until Jesus’ return?

I don’t know about a particular institution, though as I said, a reunified East and West would hold great sway over me.

Absolutely!!! But for some reason certain people don’t realize that I am respectful of all beliefs, regardless of the subject, and am only searching for truth in an amicable and honest manner. I hate it when the debate gets ugly; it’s no fun when that happens.

Well, I think they need to read without animosity.

Doesn’t sola scriptura mean: bible alone??? You and I have run across people here at CAF that believe, in the strictest sense: if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed, and I respect their right to believe that, but I don’t get it.

The use of the word “alone” is often misconstrued. When we say grace “alone”, we mean that it is only via God’s grace that we are saved. When we say faith “alone”, we simply mean that it is only by faith, not anything we do, that we access Grace. When we say Christ “alone”, it is to exclude all but the Savior.
SS says that scripture is alone as the final norm. Reference my earlier post regarding what the confessions say. It is not “alone” in that nothing else should be considered, else Lutherans would reject the creeds.

Jon

 

[tester]

Fair enough. Catch 22…So, the idea of the infallible HS guiding very fallible church leaders into all truth until Jesus returns, just as the HS did with the very fallible apostles, is NOT a possibility for you?

After Pentecost
There was a True Church with all True doctrines

Wihin one generation
St. Paul was already correcting Churches in his letters.
Jesus corrected 5 of the 7 Churches in the beginning of Revelation

Now we have
True Churches with some false doctrine
and false Churches with some True doctrines…

 

[joe370]

tester;7170592]From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

Okay, so who was entrusted with the authority to teach and interpret our ultimate authority (the bible)? Clearly you believe it’s not the CC councils or the pope or tradition, so who???

Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible

,”

As does every church since the reformation, as will the case be, no doubt, when new folks start new churches basing their teachings on their interpretation of their bible, all claiming to be subordinate to the bible and claiming to measures their teachings by the the Bible. How can I know who is right and who is wrong, or, did Jesus not leave us with a way to know truth, with certainty?

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195):We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

I agree with him. Shouldn’t I want to belong to the same church Irenaeus belonged to or no?

St. Athanasius (c.296-373):The holy and inspired** Scriptures are fully sufficient** for the proclamation of the truth.

St Augustine:
This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

These were all great teachers of the CC who taught and interpreted the holy bible. Who gave these catholic leaders the authority to do so, if not Jesus via apostolic succession? Jesus ordained Paul; Paul ordained Titus and Titus was told to ordain others. That’s succession. Did that stop?

 

[joe370]

=tester

;7170610]After Pentecost
There was a True Church with all True doctrines

Got it…

Wihin one generation
St. Paul was already correcting Churches in his letters.
Jesus

corrected 5 of the 7 Churches in the beginning of Revelation

Got it…

Now we have
True Churches with some false doctrine
and false Churches with some True doctrines…

Got it…Every church claims to be the true church. I don’t know of any church claiming to be a false church. Again, the idea of the infallible HS guiding very fallible church leaders into all truth until Jesus returns, just as the HS did with the very fallible apostles, is NOT a possibility for you?

 

[tester]

Got it…Every church claims to be the true church. I don’t know of any church claiming to be a false church. Again, the idea of the infallible HS guiding very fallible church leaders into all truth until Jesus returns, just as the HS did with the very fallible apostles, is NOT a possibility for you?

Right:
Regarding ALL areas of doctrine:
I do not believe that any infallible people or institutions in exist today:

the key word is ALL

 

[tester]

Joe370,

You keep bringing up the question of who is the authority to interpret and teach Sacred Scripture?

Take a break from the New Testament for a moment and really try to find out if God gave his CHOSEN people an infallible interpreter for the Hebrew Scriptures.

The answer may be the same for the Old and the New Testaments.
The answer may be the same as it was in 200 BC as it was in 200 AD.

And now to baseball…

 

[joe370]

Hey tester…Jon, could you get in on this too and help me out…

Joe370,

You keep bringing up the question of who is the authority to interpret and teach Sacred Scripture?

Take a break from the New Testament for a moment and really try to find out if God gave his CHOSEN people an infallible interpreter for the Hebrew Scriptures.

The answer may be the same for the Old testament.
The answer may be the same as it was in 200 BC as it was in 200 AD.

I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion that you could be right friend, which got me thinking about the infallibility of the holy Bible. Based on that same reasoning, who is to say that the fallible apostles infallibly taught and infallibly interpreted scripture all of the time? Perhaps the fallible apostles taught fallibly at times and misinterpreted scripture at times, as they were teaching and preaching, and those fallible teachings and fallible interpretations of the fallible apostles, could have eventually made there way into their writings, which were eventually compiled and codified and called the bible, by the fallible successors of the apostles in the 4th century.

In other words, there is a chance that the bible is not infallible after all, based on your logic. Like you said: The answer could be the same for the Old testament teachers and the New Testament teachers, which were the apostles - correct?

However, after further examination, I had to ask myself: Jesus did provide the holy spirit to His fledgling apostolic church who then proceeded to teach the people of the 1st century, infallibly, via the guidance of the holy spirit. Why would Jesus provide the 1st century followers (members of Jesus’ church) - with His infallible truths taught by His fallible apostles, and then fail to do the same for the rest of His church followers (members of Jesus’ church) - in the later centuries, via the fallible successors of the fallible apostles???

 

[jericho777]

So wrong my friend!!! How could anyone not believe that the word of God is supreme and infallible? Moreover, how could anyone believe that God would not give the world an inspired interpreter of the word of God via the guidance of the holy spirit?

QUOTE]

You are very correct scripture is supreme and infallible. However the cc believes it has supremacy over scripture and it only means what they say it means. Do you think it is really that hard or difficult for the average person to read and grasp the simple truths contained within? Paul reminds Timothy the scriptures he knew first hand from his youth were sufficient for all instruction. Notice he does not say he should go to the church for instruction and enlightenment but the scriptures themselves. God did not write in some secret code that can only be understood by some elite few. How do you know that anything you read you are qualified to understand its meaning?

 

[jericho777]

Hey tester…Jon, could you get in on this too and help me out…

I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion that you could be right friend, which got me thinking about the infallibility of the holy Bible. Based on that same reasoning, who is to say that the fallible apostles infallibly taught and infallibly interpreted scripture all of the time? Perhaps the fallible apostles taught fallibly at times and misinterpreted scripture at times, as they were teaching and preaching, and those fallible teachings and fallible interpretations of the fallible apostles, could have eventually made there way into their writings, which were eventually compiled and codified and called the bible, by the fallible successors of the apostles in the 4th century.

In other words, there is a chance that the bible is not infallible after all, based on your logic. Like you said: The answer could be the same for the Old testament teachers and the New Testament teachers, which were the apostles - correct?

However, after further examination, I had to ask myself: Jesus did provide the holy spirit to His fledgling apostolic church who then proceeded to teach the people of the 1st century, infallibly, via the guidance of the holy spirit. Why would Jesus provide the 1st century followers (members of Jesus’ church) - with His infallible truths taught by His fallible apostles, and then fail to do the same for the rest of His church followers (members of Jesus’ church) - in the later centuries, via the fallible successors of the fallible apostles???

We do see Peter taken to task by Paul for playing the part of the hypocrite by living as the gentiles then as a Jew when other Jews would come. Also Paul corrects the council in Jerusalem as to the circumcision of gentile believers.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho…

You are very correct scripture is supreme and infallible. However the cc believes it has supremacy over scripture and it only means what they say it means.

Not true, but even if I showed you that you were wrong about the CC, believing that the CC teaches that the CC has supremacy over sacred scripture, you wouldn’t believe me anyway, so what’s the point. If you were right, I never would have become catholic, but you are not. Give me the name of the church that doesn’t claim to teach correct doctrine and does not expect their members to agree with their teachings? Every protestant church, in my experience, wants their members to adhere to their teachings, as it should be.

Do you think it is really that hard or difficult for the average person to read and grasp the simple truths contained within?

Some things, yes, other things, no. Perhaps you could direct that question to the hundreds of sola sciptura churches in the world today. If it’s so dar n simple why so much division, doctrinally speaking?

Paul reminds Timothy the scriptures he knew first hand from his youth were sufficient for all instruction. Notice he does not say he should go to the church for instruction and enlightenment but the scriptures themselves. God did not write in some secret code that can only be understood by some elite few. How do you know that anything you read you are qualified to understand its meaning?

Some things, like you said, are obvious. Other things, like the Eucharist, I simply defer to the church that Paul belonged to, and take his advice when he says, obey your leaders… The bible is replete with instructions regarding deference to church leadership. For example:

17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

You do not receive doctrinal guidance from a Pastor???

 

[joe370]

We do see Peter taken to task by Paul for playing the part of the hypocrite by living as the gentiles then as a Jew when other Jews would come. Also Paul corrects the council in Jerusalem as to the circumcision of gentile believers.

This in no way addressed the questions in that particular post. Instead you go after Peter. Poor guy can’t catch a break, not even 2000 years later, for simply being a fallible human like you and me. I could take a shot at Paul but he too was only a fallible human. However, both taught infallibly. I wonder how they managed to pull that off?

You got it backwards regarding the council in Jerusalem:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

 

[fhansen]

Do JW’s consider themselves SS? I didn’t know that.

The great claim of the JWs is their “Reasoning from Scripture”. Their founder, Charles Taze Russell, first founded the Dawn Bible Students. In any case, everything they believe is based on their interpretation of scripture-they just claim to be more reasonable about it then those of us involved in what they call “Christiandom”. From a Catholic perspective they’re more or less Protestant offspring albeit far removed. And in fact the so-called Great Awakening of the 19th century played heavily in their roots.

 

[SyCarl]

Hey tester…

That makes sense, with one exception: Who was entrusted with the god given authority, via the guidance of the HS to use reason, experience, tradition and scripture to infallibly interpret scripture and infallibly teach?

Why does there have to be an infallible authority to interpret? Israel had no infallible interpreter but there always remained a faithful remnant no matter how bad things got. If they had listened to the supposed authorities of their day, they to would have been lost.

God was able to maintain that remnant despite the corruption of the religious and secular hierarchies. He can do the same today without having an infallible authority to follow. We can trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth.

Are there different interpretations of Scripture? Of course there are but I think that we expect to understand too much. The creed of the early church was a few lines long. Why do we now need a 1000 page catechism to guide us?

We are told to believe. Do we need to know the mechanics of how we come to believe? ie whether it is by freewill, predestination or some combinaation of these or other factors.

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. Do we have to explain everything that might take place in it or is it not enough just to do it because He told us to and trust Him to accomplish what He intended?

Do we have to understand the exact relationship between faith and works or is it enough to realize that in their own way both are somehow important?

The list can go on and on. In our pride we feel we need and deserve to know and understand everything. So we define dogmas and doctrines and then squabble over them. We are dealing with God and have to realize that our limited and finite capacities cannot begin to understand.the infinite and incomprehensible.

 

[joe370]

SyCarl;7171441]Why does there have to be an infallible authority to interpret? Israel had no infallible interpreter but there always remained a faithful remnant no matter how bad things got. If they had listened to the supposed authorities of their day, they to would have been lost.

I guess there doesn’t have to be one Carl. Why should I trust that the fallible apostles taught and wrote infallibly (which is why we call the bible the infallible word of God) - considering the fact that Israel had no infallible teacher/interpreter I am asking with all humility friend.

God was able to maintain that remnant despite the corruption of the religious and secular hierarchies. He can do the same today without having an infallible authority to follow. We can trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth.

God could and did. Why don’t non-Catholics (not all) - say the same about the CC when it come to the corruption found in the CC? If we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth then said truth can be identified, regardless of the doctrinal division that exists today - right? Based on what you just said, which is, we can trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth - where can one go to find truth regarding the Eucharist. The holy spirit did not guide me to truth and my sister to truth, and I believe that Jesus said, this is my body and my sister believes that Jesus said, the symbol of my body? A little help Carl. Or, does it Not matter if there is more than one interpretation vis-a-vis the teachings found in the bible?

The creed of the early church was a few lines long. Why do we now need a 1000 page catechism to guide us?

Why do we need all those extra biblical protestant/Evangelical guides? A still have some in my closet. I don’t believe that either of them attempt to supplant the word; they merely attempt to interpret the word, which everyone does everyday.

We are told to believe. Do we need to know the mechanics of how we come to believe?

I guess not. My sister belongs to a church that has jettisoned baptism by water. Do they need to know the mechanics…? Her Pastor, who rejects baptism, agrees with you regarding the mechanics and the authority of the church yet he teaches authoritatively from the pulpit, in his church. Very confusing.

ie whether it is by freewill, predestination or some combinaation of these or other factors.

Maybe you are right; maybe it doesn’t matter if we know what truth is regarding Jesus’ teachings. The whole thing is starting to get old for me. I can’t seem to get any definitive answers regarding any of my questions, well, except you. Again, maybe an inspired interpreter is not necessary when it comes to the infallible word, and therefore truth remains elusive regarding only certain teachings.

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. Do we have to explain everything that might take place in it or is it not enough just to do it because He told us to and trust Him to accomplish what He intended?

I just wish I could know with certainty, whether or not Jesus was speaking metaphorically, or not, at His last supper, and according to you, I guess I’ll have to wait until I can ask Jesus himself.

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll give it some thought.