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

[jericho777]

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?

Welcome regression and lurk on in. No not at all. The bible was a progressive revelation which means God over time revealed what was sufficient for His people to know. I think the OT took about 1600? years to complete and the NT about 62 years. God’s people over that time frame never lacked for saving knowledge from God.

 

[regression]

Welcome regression and lurk on in. No not at all. The bible was a progressive revelation which means God over time revealed what was sufficient for His people to know. I think the OT took about 1600? years to complete and the NT about 62 years. God’s people over that time frame never lacked for saving knowledge from God.

OK, thanks. I think I see what you mean now. When I first read your post, I saw the word bible and I assumed you meant the bible as we have it now (at least the new testament).

 

[JHow]

@ Jericho77:

If I read you correctly, you believe there was a transitionary period where the NT was compiled (where presumably the authority is the apostles), but once compiled, the Bible becomes the sole authority?

 

[jericho777]

@ Jericho77:

If I read you correctly, you believe there was a transitionary period where the NT was compiled (where presumably the authority is the apostles), but once compiled, the Bible becomes the sole authority?

Sorry if I was not clear. The bible was written over a 60+ year period of time and during that time it was scripture and doctrine prior to being canonized. I can’t say if all the authors of the bible were apostles. The human authors only wrote what they were inspired to by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Syele]

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…

I never actually heard the term “sola scriptura” before coming to this forum a few years ago. It was kind of funny, I studied what it meant because a Catholic informed me that I believed it. Then after study and debate another Catholic convinced me that I didn’t. lol.

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.

It is important to remember that there are 5 solas, not just one. They work intertwined with one another, not individually. If each is truly “alone” then there cant be 5 of them.

Anyway to get back on topic, I do not believe God dropped the Bible from Heaven and went away never to he heard from again. That seems to me to be what you are describing.

When a dispute about the meaning of scripture arises, the proper way to handle it is to take it to the body of believers(the church) through prayer and supplication, and study of Scriptures, Not to leave the body and go on their own nor to fight it out among only two believers.

Failure of humans to do this properly and their fighting among themselves is a weakness in humans, not a weakness in Gods plan. Much the same as Humans penchant for sin is a human problem and not a sign of God’s failure.

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?

Only God does. And if you truly cant work out all the fine details your best course of action is to trust God through his Grace and have faith in Him to show the correct answer to you or be prepared to obey even if you do not have full understanding. Even the Catholic Church has not given to you a definitive list of infailable declarations as to the proper interpretation of every verse of scripture. At some point we all have points taht are not fully explained. There are some things we just wont know until/if we get to heaven.

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

The Bible is infallible. If something contradicts the Bible, then I have no reason to believe it. This makes it a “final” authority since nothing is allowed to override it. God does still speak to His people in other ways. There are personal revelations, general revelations, and prophets as well.

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

if you start a denomination then I suppose it would follow that you will start churches as well, however, you can start a church without starting a denomination. Starting a new denomination implies that you are “splitting” from another established one and that you do not agree with any already currently established denomination. Starting a church simply implies that you have a need to gather with other Christians and worship God, pray study His Word, etc.

 

[jericho777]

I never actually heard the term “sola scriptura” before coming to this forum a few years ago. It was kind of funny, I studied what it meant because a Catholic informed me that I believed it. Then after study and debate another Catholic convinced me that I didn’t. lol.

The Bible is infallible. If something contradicts the Bible, then I have no reason to believe it. This makes it a “final” authority since nothing is allowed to override it. God does still speak to His people in other ways. There are personal revelations, general revelations, and prophets as well.

Sounds like some will say that sounds like sola scriptura!

 

[Nicea325]

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?

Yes they were inspired to write…indeed. Christ came to found His Church,not hand out Bibles and teach it is the final authority. And isn’t the Church the mystical Body of Christ?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Got my popcorn popped…
Front row seats with a coke & smile

I’ve been wondering this one myself…

Looks like you are going to eat a lot of pop corn because the OP started with a strawman argument.

 

[joe370]

Looks like you are going to eat a lot of pop corn because the OP started with a strawman argument.

I ask a simple and logical question and you accuse me of “creating an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position?”

Interesting! How has my question misrepresented your position friend?

 

[jericho777]

Yes they were inspired to write…indeed. Christ came to found His Church,not hand out Bibles and teach it is the final authority. And isn’t the Church the mystical Body of Christ?

Actually Jesus came to save souls not start a church. He uses the body of believers to be His ambassadors preaching the gospel.

Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus is the bible in the flesh that has all the authority. See how easy that is.

 

[joe370]

Hey Syele…

Syele;8441955]I…It was kind of funny, I studied what it meant because a Catholic informed me that I believed it. Then after study and debate another Catholic convinced me that I didn’t. lol.

LOL…I had (continue to have) - the same dilemma with non-Catholics. One says one thing and another says the opposite. I guess I’ll never really know…

It is important to remember that there are 5 solas, not just one. They work intertwined with one another, not individually. If each is truly “alone” then there cant be 5 of them.

That seems to me to be what you are describing. When a dispute about the meaning of scripture arises, the proper way to handle it is to take it to the body of believers(the church) through prayer and supplication, and study of Scriptures, Not to leave the body and go on their own nor to fight it out among only two believers.

So, it’s the responsibility of each Protestant church leadership to authoritatively settle any and all disputes when they arise, of course with the aid of scripture, or the responsibility of the body of believers of the Protestant church (collaborative effort of both church leadership and laity) - to authoritatively settle any and all disputes…?

Even the Catholic Church has not given to you a definitive list of infallible declarations as to the proper interpretation of every verse of scripture.

Of course, they don’t. We are free to interpret scripture without deferring to the CC leadership, but when catholics have difference of opinion they take it to the church for resolution, which seems to be the case for sola scriptura advocates, if I am understanding you correctly?

At some point we all have points taht are not fully explained. There are some things we just wont know until/if we get to heaven.

You are so right. For example, who in the heck are those 2 witnesses in Revelation? No one knows with any degree of certainty.

The Bible is infallible. If something contradicts the Bible, then I have no reason to believe it.

Makes sense. In your opinion did Jesus leave the world with an infallible interpreter of the infallible bible, regarding revealed truths like the Eucharist, as opposed to unrevealed truths, like the aforementioned 2 witnesses?

This makes it a “final” authority since nothing is allowed to override it.

So church leadership (regardless of denomination in the protestant world) - is to defer to the bible (which is their final authority) to hash out the particulars regarding any and all doctrinal disputes, when they arise, and resolve the matter for those sola scriptura proponents who can’t find resolution on their own? Similar to what the CC did in the 4th century regarding doctrines such as the Trinity or Theotokos etc…? Seems reasonable…

God does still speak to His people in other ways. There are personal revelations, general revelations, and prophets as well.

Absolutely…

Starting a new denomination implies that you are “splitting” from another established one and that you do not agree with any already currently established denomination.

I’m fairly sure that a denomination is a religious group comprised of separate churches For example, within Lutheranism we see the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Is this a good example of a denomination “splitting” from another established denomination because it can’t agree with the current established denomination?

I think we both agree that this certainly doesn’t seem to match the paradigm of the church, in scripture. For example, Paul doesn’t condone departure when people, within the church, cannot agree on something, as is the case with every new denomination; quite the opposite. Paul exhorts them to “have confidence in their leaders and submit to their authority…”

Starting a church simply implies that you have a need to gather with other Christians and worship God, pray study His Word, etc

The 2 major founders of Protestantism are Luther and Zwingl and they didn’t start a church as a need to gather with other Christians and worship God, pray study His Word, etc. They separated and started their own respective church because they could not agree on the Lord’s Supper, and this lack of central authority (since they both decided to reject CC authority) - has been the protestant model, (repeated by others who could not agree) - for centuries. Sola scriptura, as the Christians final authority, seems to have been the downfall to the unity of the Church, both in belief and practice. Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Luther and Zwingli, (both having differing interpretations of scripture, precipitating their separation) - seem to have set something of a pattern for the division and diversification that has characterized Protestantism for the last 500 years, but that’s just my take on it; I could be wrong…

The problem, within protestantism, seems to be the lack of central authority when it comes to scripture and discerning truth. For example, when a sola scriptura proponent disagrees with their established authoritative church leadership they simply have the right, as per the practice of SS, to bolt in search of another church that conforms more readily to their set of beliefs, or, they start their own church and this domino effect seems endless…

Well, that’s how I saw things as a former non-Catholic, and of course it doesn’t mean that I am right…

 

[joe370]

Hi joe. Hermeneutics is a cut and dried methodology. It uses scripture to interpret scripture.

Hey Jericho. Jesus left the world with sacred scripture to authoritatively interpret sacred scripture, so that doctrinal truth could be known and preserved for all generations?

I still don’t know how scripture can interpret itself, but if it makes sense to you, that’s all that matters.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8441414]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.

When Paul said, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account…” - he was actually telling them to rely on the bible? Okay…

Would you submit to a priest who is going against church teaching? No.

No. I would report him to his bishop. That hierarchy is there for a reason in my humble opinion.

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.

Take it to scripture? Got it.

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

The CCC is merely an accurate exposition of sacred scripture in my opinion. Catholics do not use the CCC in lieu of scripture…

 

[Nicea325]

Actually Jesus came to save souls not start a church. He uses the body of believers to be His ambassadors preaching the gospel.

Jesus is the word made flesh. Jesus is the bible in the flesh that has all the authority. See how easy that is.

Yes Jesus came to save souls and one means is through His Church,not the Bible-Only. If he did not come to found His Church,then why he even bother to select 12 men to continue with His Church? Why even bother to tell Peter: BUILD MY CHURCH? Church…not the Bible-Only.

Yes I see how easy it is for you because you indirectly are admitting the Bible is the FINAL authority. Thus,show me where Jesus taught it as the final authority?

You side stepped jericho: Is the Church the mystical Body of Christ-yes or no?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Sounds like some will say that sounds like sola scriptura!

Depends on how you define sola scriptura and/or if you differentiate sola scriptura versus prima scriptura. I don’t use the phrase myself if only because when taken undefined literally it is confusing. But according to some definitions out there I fall under it.

Since I have already done the “debate sola scriptura” thing here i have no interest in repeating myself.

 

[joe370]

Jericho, you said:

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.

So the answer to the following question, is: no one can definitively settle the matter as the CC did regarding things like the Trinity?

When doctrinal difference do occur, e.g. the Eucharist, and scripture is clearly not resolving the matter, to whom can a Christian go, to definitively settle the matter?

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.

Agreed. However, the bible, by itself, as the Christians final authority, could not have definitively resolved the matter of what should have been included in the holy canon and excluded from the holy canon. Surely we are on the same page here - maybe?

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.

You are right. But I’m still curious about one thing if you don’t mind answering:

Is it your belief that the early church fathers, (men who didn’t always see eye to eye) - such as Polycarp, Iraneaus, Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius Clement of Rome, Augustine and Jerome - did NOT belong to the church founded by Jesus?

 

[jericho777]

Hey Jericho. Jesus left the world with sacred scripture to authoritatively interpret sacred scripture, so that doctrinal truth could be known and preserved for all generations?

I still don’t know how scripture can interpret itself, but if it makes sense to you, that’s all that matters.

The methodology of hermeneutics is applied to interpret scripture. BTW how did you interpret scripture before you became catholic?

 

[jericho777]

When Paul said, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account…” - he was actually telling them to rely on the bible? Okay…

All I’m saying is Church leaders must adhere to biblical teaching. And yes I would use the bible to see if they were.

No. I would report him to his bishop. That hierarchy is there for a reason in my humble opinion.

And you can reference CCC to know if a priest or other church official is in error. I use the bible to know if something is not kosher.

The CCC is merely an accurate exposition of sacred scripture in my opinion. Catholics do not use the CCC in lieu of scripture…

You may not use it in lieu of scripture but you use it like I use scripture.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Asking a “question” like that is neither asking for information, nor is it calculated to inform anyone. it is antagonistic and dismissive, and to most people from non-Catholic Christian faiths it would appear to also be demeaning. It certainly is not designed to attract anyone to the Catholic faith, or to inform anyone.

I understand this, because I come from an Evangelical Protestant background. My grandfather, great-grandfather, great uncles, uncles, etc on my mother side of the family were all Ministers of the Gospel.

I have to say, that on the whole, I have found that evangelical Protestants tend to live out their faith, on a day to day basis, much more than most Catholics do. They take their faith VERY seriously, and they try their best to actually live it all of the time.

On the whole, they do not take kindly to people attempting to “put down” their religious beliefs as this “question” attempts to do. It is indeed sad that all too many people, on BOTH sides of this issue, would much rather attack each other, than make any attempt to actually dialog.

The Protestant faiths arose because of serious, and very wide spread abuses, in the Catholic Church (which our Church acknowledges were there).

Always keep in mind that old adage, “You attract more flies with honey, than you do with vinegar.”

You will not get very far in moving people toward conversion by attacking their faith. And this “question” is most definitely an attack.

 

[jericho777]

Yes Jesus came to save souls and one means is through His Church,not the Bible-Only. If he did not come to found His Church,then why he even bother to select 12 men to continue with His Church? Why even bother to tell Peter: BUILD MY CHURCH? Church…not the Bible-Only.

Nicea people read the bible and become saved apart from the church organization. First there were more than 12 apostles but their primary duty was to preach the gospel. Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. He didn’t tell them to preach the church. The body is secondary to peoples salvation.

Yes I see how easy it is for you because you indirectly are admitting the Bible is the FINAL authority. Thus,show me where Jesus taught it as the final authority?

Jesus is the bible. Is he not?

You side stepped jericho: Is the Church the mystical Body of Christ-yes or no?

Could you please give me a bible reference for this?