I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[joe370]

The church has the authority that is outlined for it in the bible.

Which Church (in a world with so many autonomous churches) - has the authority that is outlined for it in the bible? That’s the church I want to belong to…

I wonder what the church did for the first few hundred years of Christianity, before the holy bible was bound and codified? If you tell me that the church always had, at their disposal, the holy bible, then perhaps you could tell me which church, in the world today, was the church of those first few hundred years of Christianity that always had, at their disposal, the holy bible? That too is the church I want to belong to…

 

[joe370]

Paul had to get his information directly from God because these were new doctrines that were not already in scripture. If you read Paul’s writings you will see he quoted scripture many, many times. Incidentally once God gave Paul the understanding he had no problem seeing Christ in the OT.

Every doctrine Paul preached is in the bible. Paul did use the OT to preach from before the NT was written. You’ll have to admit it would be pretty hard to have a bible to preach from before it is even written! As he wrote his letters they were used for doctrine and instruction. Paul had no problem with the Bereans testing his words against the scriptures Acts 17:11.

Like the ol’ adage goes: the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

I always assumed that the Bereans were examining the old to see, if what Paul had said about Jesus, regarding the fulfilled prophecies, was in fact true?

I don’t think Paul would have been OK with each and every individual from Berea, deferring to the bible as their final authority, let alone the Old testament alone as their final authority, especially in view of Hebrews 13?

Your thoughts friend?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[joe370]

Through Christ, for Christ, by Christ…the question is on what authority do you propose and back up your proposition. As a Protestant any formula you give is “fallible”. No Protestant can provide any formula that must be accepted and believed by all. It is always fallible and subject to question.

That is so true, by their own admission. No protestant will insist that the CC cannot teach infallibly and then turn around and suggest that their church leaders can teach infallibly. It will always be fallible and subject to question…

What I have learned is that most protestants simply believe that God left the world with an infallible bible with no means to infallibly interpret it or make infallible decisions/pronouncements all the while embracing the Trinitarian doctrine defined and infallibly pronounced by the CC in the 4th century. Very confusing…

 

[joe370]

Jesus started a church which are his believers. church = the people of God, not some institution.

Every church, be it catholic or protestant, is an institution, which is, by definition:
an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character.
2.
the building devoted to such work.

 

[jericho777]

So you are claiming the canonized Bible is the authority? Where does Jesus teach such a belief? The canonized Bible came before Jesus Church? So the church is submissive to the Bible?

The bible is the word of God in which God gives us the definition of what is the church and her mission here on earth. The church is bound to follow what God has told her through the bible. How do you think we know what the mission and structure of the body of Christ is to be? It’s the bible. The word is true and verifiable.

 

[jericho777]

Which Church (in a world with so many autonomous churches) - has the authority that is outlined for it in the bible? That’s the church I want to belong to…

I wonder what the church did for the first few hundred years of Christianity, before the holy bible was bound and codified? If you tell me that the church always had, at their disposal, the holy bible, then perhaps you could tell me which church, in the world today, was the church of those first few hundred years of Christianity that always had, at their disposal, the holy bible? That too is the church I want to belong to…

We have a different definition of whom and what the church is. But as long as your preaching the gospel and reaching the lost for the glory of God. I say go for it.

Well the bible didn’t just appear 400 years after the death of Jesus. It was always there and fully complete about 60 years after the death of Jesus. As the revelation of the NT progressed through the first century so did the knowledge and framework for Christianity. As individual books were written and passed about they were used as inspired works and proof texts for doctrine and instruction.

BTW the first church was not the RCC.

 

[Nicea325]

The bible is the word of God in which God gives us the definition of what is the church and her mission here on earth. The church is bound to follow what God has told her through the bible. How do you think we know what the mission and structure of the body of Christ is to be? It’s the bible. The word is true and verifiable.

No! We know because of the 12 men Jesus left in charge of His Church,who LATER penned it on parchment. So you do believe the canonzed Bible came before the church? The effect (Bible) cannot be greater than the cause (Church). The bible came from the church,not vice versa.

 

[Nicea325]

We have a different definition of whom and what the church is. But as long as your preaching the gospel and reaching the lost for the glory of God. I say go for it.

Well the bible didn’t just appear 400 years after the death of Jesus. It was always there and fully complete about 60 years after the death of Jesus. As the revelation of the NT progressed through the first century so did the knowledge and framework for Christianity. As individual books were written and passed about they were used as inspired works and proof texts for doctrine and instruction.

BTW the first church was not the RCC.

Your right becausee RCC belonged to the larger universal church. Roman is just one rite as there exist others.

 

[jericho777]

No! We know because of the 12 men Jesus left in charge of His Church,who LATER penned it on parchment. So you do believe the canonzed Bible came before the church? The effect (Bible) cannot be greater than the cause (Church). The bible came from the church,not vice versa.

Those who penned scripture only wrote what the Holy Spirit (God) inspired them to. Scripture and church developed alongside of each other. Isn’t God greater than the church?

 

[jericho777]

Like the ol’ adage goes: the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

Yes

I always assumed that the Bereans were examining the old to see, if what Paul had said about Jesus, regarding the fulfilled prophecies, was in fact true?

Yes definately the OT but there could have been some NT scriptures available but I don’t know.

I don’t think Paul would have been OK with each and every individual from Berea, deferring to the bible as their final authority, let alone the Old testament alone as their final authority, especially in view of Hebrews 13?

Your thoughts friend?

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I can’t read his mind but he is clearly praising this group for their use of scripture in testing his religious claims.

I don’t know what the issue is with Heb 13? Could you please let me know?

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8439704]We have a different definition of whom and what the church is. But as long as your preaching the gospel and reaching the lost for the glory of God. I say go for it.

Many non-Catholics would disagree with me regarding my interpretation of certain teachings, such as the holy Eucharist. With that said, how can I convince the lost that I am imparting doctrinal truth, when another Christian is out there imparting the exact opposite, regarding the same doctrinal truth? When such a situation does occur and scripture is clearly not resolving the matter, to whom can the lost go, to definitively settle the matter?

Well the bible didn’t just appear 400 years after the death of Jesus. It was always there and fully complete about 60 years after the death of Jesus.

Of course. However, it wasn’t bound and codified,( by the CC) - until the 4th century, and much to my surprise, at least 7 books of the NT were considered questionable as to their authenticity, in certain parts of the Roman Empire which was one of the reasons why the canon was eventually codified. Wouldn’t you agree?

As the revelation of the NT progressed through the first century so did the knowledge and framework for Christianity. As individual books were written and passed about they were used as inspired works and proof texts for doctrine and instruction.

BTW the first church was not the RCC.

The term Roman Catholic Church is a tad misleading. For example, when my niece (Lutheran) - was told that by her Pastor, she inferred from that, that the CC in Rome is a different church than the CC to which I belong. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to just refer to the RCC as the CC, of course headquartered in Rome?

If the CC was not the first church then the CC was/is not the church established by Jesus Christ. If this is what you believe, that’s cool…

I am a little unclear about one thing: Are you suggesting that the early church fathers, (spanning the centuries from the latter part of the 1st century to the 4th century) - such as Polycarp, Iraneaus, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius Clement of Rome, Augustine and Jerome - were not Catholics belonging to the church founded by Jesus?

 

[joe370]

Jericho777

I don’t know what the issue is with Heb 13? Could you please let me know?

Sure. As a former sola scriptura proponent myself, I always wondered why Paul didn’t say:

Have confidence in scripture alone and submit to the authority of scripture alone…

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account…” Hebrews 13

If Paul had believed that scripture alone was in fact to be the Christians only authority (as opposed to any kind of human authority, with the exception of the apostles) - then why say, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority…”

Why should any scripture alone proponent, (who believes that sacred scripture is the final authority for him or her) - feel the need to submit to any kind of human authority regarding God’s word which is the final authority for non-Catholics?

 

[joe370]

Hey Syele, you said:

Sola scriptura is a complicated term with different meanings depending on many things (and going over ALL of them would likely derail the thread), It would be Helpful to me, if you would tell me what you mean by using it.

That’s for sure. When I started a thread with the hopes of establishing a consensus as to the definition of sola scriptura, I got nowhere fast…

As a former sola scriptura proponent, I always thought it meant that scripture alone was the Christians one and only authority for edification, resolving doctrinal differences when they occur, and the building up of the church. The only problem is: who steps in to resolve said differences when 2 people, both deferring to scripture alone, cannot come to an agreement? For example I believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and my niece does not. Scripture failed to resolve the matter for us. I thought at the time: Did God leave us with a way to know, with certainty, who is right and who is wrong when the bible speaks differently to different people? I now realize the answer is yes. Jesus left us with His church which He continues to guide, into all truth, until His return, as per John 14, John 16 etc.

Regardless of which version of sola scriptura you are thinking of, I don’t actually know of any of the definitions where people describe themselves as Sola scriptura and mean “I am the final authority on what Scriptures means”. I certainly do not claim to be a final authority on anything.

This is where it gets kind of confusing to me. If it does not mean “I (the sola scriptura proponent) - am the final authority on what Scriptures means” - then who does have the final authority on what scripture means?

No, I just showed scripture that commands all Christians to gather together, sing praises to God, and fellowship/support one another.

I also listed one that says where 2 or more are gathered, there God is. So what I see in a protestant church is people gathering, praising God, and supporting one another.

Therefore according to scriptures they not only have authority to have their “church” they would be disobedient to God if they refused to have such gatherings.

So they derive their authority to teach and preach and resolve doctrinal differences, when they occur directly from God? OK…

If I find myself in a remote area with only a couple fellow Christians and no church, yes, I would start one rather than forsake gathering together.

This position clearly does not exclude any authority other than the Bible, though it does assert that the Bible has authority.

The bible “has authority,” or the bible is the Christians final authority?

Starting a denomination is a whole other ball of wax.

Starting a denomination is not the same as starting a church???

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho777…

A question I often pondered as a former non-Catholic:

Jesus is no longer here to enforce anything regarding the science of interpretation of sacred scripture. Who then, did Jesus leave the world with, in His stead, to authoritatively deal with the methodology of hermeneutics so that doctrinal truth can be known and preserved for all generations?

 

[CopticChristian]

Those who penned scripture only wrote what the Holy Spirit (God) inspired them to. Scripture and church developed alongside of each other. Isn’t God greater than the church?

You are going to have to argue with Paul on this one, according to His master, The Church is the Body of Christ, the mystery hidden for all ages, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known. Scripture was birthed by the Church. Isn’t God greater than your reason?

 

[jericho777]

Many non-Catholics would disagree with me regarding my interpretation of certain teachings, such as the holy Eucharist. With that said, how can I convince the lost that I am imparting doctrinal truth, when another Christian is out there imparting the exact opposite, regarding the same doctrinal truth? When such a situation does occur and scripture is clearly not resolving the matter, to whom can the lost go, to definitively settle the matter?

No matter to what or to whom you go there will be those who will not believe. Some rightly and some wrongly. I have seen the word of God come to pass in my life without fail. That’s my proof.

Of course. However, it wasn’t bound and codified,( by the CC) - until the 4th century, and much to my surprise, at least 7 books of the NT were considered questionable as to their authenticity, in certain parts of the Roman Empire which was one of the reasons why the canon was eventually codified. Wouldn’t you agree?

So because the real bible was being used from the beginning and there were some other questionable books does not negate the fact the real bible was alive and well enlightening believers with the truth.

I am a little unclear about one thing: Are you suggesting that the early church fathers, (spanning the centuries from the latter part of the 1st century to the 4th century) - such as Polycarp, Iraneaus, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius Clement of Rome, Augustine and Jerome - were not Catholics belonging to the church founded by Jesus?

The ECF’s are not unanimous in their doctrines. The CC says they were mistaken in the areas where they don’t agree with the church.

 

[jericho777]

Sure. As a former sola scriptura proponent myself, I always wondered why Paul didn’t say:

Have confidence in scripture alone and submit to the authority of scripture alone…

“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account…” Hebrews 13

If Paul had believed that scripture alone was in fact to be the Christians only authority (as opposed to any kind of human authority, with the exception of the apostles) - then why say, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority…”

Why should any scripture alone proponent, (who believes that sacred scripture is the final authority for him or her) - feel the need to submit to any kind of human authority regarding God’s word which is the final authority for non-Catholics?

Paul was telling Timothy and the Bereans to rely on the bible. What is the frame work within which the church leaders must operate in? The bible.

Would you submit to a priest who is going against church teaching? No. Why, because you don’t need to have a person from Rome to tell you what the church believes, you have access to their writings that tell you so. The same with using the bible as your guide.

You use the CCC as your guide, I use the bible.

 

[jericho777]

Hey Jericho777…

A question I often pondered as a former non-Catholic:

Jesus is no longer here to enforce anything regarding the science of interpretation of sacred scripture. Who then, did Jesus leave the world with, in His stead, to authoritatively deal with the methodology of hermeneutics so that doctrinal truth can be known and preserved for all generations?

Hi joe. Hermeneutics is a cut and dried methodology. It uses scripture to interpret scripture. The Bereans were not under the “authority” of any church yet were able to vet Paul’s teachings, why? It is the work of the Holy Spirit to enlighten believers.

 

[regression]

Paul was telling Timothy and the Bereans to rely on the bible. What is the frame work within which the church leaders must operate in? The bible.

Hi jericho777. I have been lurking on this thread and the above post did bring up a question for me. If I have my timeline correct, at the time Paul wrote Timothy, the Book of Revelation had not yet been written. So do you believe that Timothy didn’t need the Book of Revelation in his “bible”, yet me do in ours today?

 

[jericho777]

You are going to have to argue with Paul on this one, according to His master, The Church is the Body of Christ, the mystery hidden for all ages, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known. Scripture was birthed by the Church. Isn’t God greater than your reason?

Yes, believers in Christ make up His body and in them He has made known the mystery hidden for all ages. This is what the OT prophets spoke of but never saw for themselves.

I thought all scripture was given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?