Proof that Christ's Church was not Sola Scriptura

[alwayswill]

Another non-sequitur.

Could you please answer the question:
Is it your church’s position that you are free to depart from it if you find its teachings to be non-scriptural?

of course I am free to depart:

Are you not free to depart the Catholic Church?

 

[PRmerger]

no: I reject that is a requirement:

It is not a requirement of God
it is not a requirement of Scripture

If you believe that Scripture tells you everything you need to know about God, then…Scripture should state that.

That’s just common sense.

Otherwise, you’re opening yourself to permitting all sorts of non-Scriptural doctrines to be followed.

 

[PRmerger]

of course I am free to depart:

And that would be encouraged?

(We’re not talking about free will here, alwayswill. Think of it this way: does your church say you’re free to leave your spouse? You could answer: of course I am free to do so…

But the question is: is this encouraged/sanctioned/permitted?)

 

[alwayswill]

I think what conclusion we can get from Scripture being God-breathed is that we must submit to its authority.

But it doesn’t follow that it’s the ULTIMATE or ONLY authority.

But they’re not the ONLY authority.

And even you have acknowledged that you submit to the authority of the CC…each and every time you quote from the NT as being theopneustos.

I have never said Scripture is the only authority:

I have said Scripture is at the same level of authority as God speaking from His throne:
and it is impossible for any authority to be higher than that.

 

[alwayswill]

And that would be encouraged?

(We’re not talking about free will here, alwayswill. Think of it this way: does your church say you’re free to leave your spouse? You could answer: of course I am free to do so…

But the question is: is this encouraged/sanctioned/permitted?)

In general : we would not encouraged those who think we are contradicting or violating Scripture to remain.
If someone thinks our Church is in serious error: and after attempting to correct us; was unable make a change: why would they want to stay?

After a decade of being in leadership, and being a lay speaker/preacher, I left a liberal Methodist Church for that very reason… i tried for years to reason through Scripture: I was unable to initiate a change: so I left

 

[Duane1966]

Start in Genesis, and look at all the instances God spoke to man, (Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, etc…​

So it is NOT a requirement of the highest authority to state it is the highest authority for it to be true…

Writings breathed out by God, carrying the same authority as God Himself speaking from His Throne

Until the Bible can literally speak to you when you open it, and tell you what passages mean, your interpretation is the ultimate authority.

Taken from calledtocommunion.com:

Protestant dogma insists that Sola Scriptura is an article of faith.1 By its own criteria, articles of faith must be established by divine revelation. In the words of Zacharius Ursinus (d. 1583), author of the Heidelberg Catechism, “The doctrine of the church has God for its author . . . whilst the various religious systems of sectarists have been invented by men.”2 It is strange, then, that the Protestant apology for this article of faith rests almost entirely on an alleged logical inference, and not from the direct witness of divine revelation. The syllogism runs as follows:

1. We need a final authority,

1. Scripture, because of its unique attributes, is the best candidate,

1. Therefore, Scripture is the final authority.

This syllogism is found again and again, in various forms, throughout the history of Reformed dogmatics. The Dutch theologian Leonard van Rijssen, for example, argued simply, “From these attributes of Scripture it follows that it is a canon and norm of the things to be believed.” According to Richard Muller, Rijssen understood Scripture’s canonical authority “as a deduction, not directly from divinity or divine authority but from several attributes of Scripture.”3 Rijssen’s argument was not unique. Luther and Calvin both suggest it. Others, like Musculus, Polanus, Turrentin, Hyperius, and Vermigli, teach it more explicitly.4

We can and should debate these premises of this syllogism, since they are not self-evident, but even if we grant them for the sake of argument, does this syllogism meet the Ursinus test? Can it demonstrate that sola scriptura is an article of faith, revealed by God?

The Catholic position has always been that Christ did give explicit instructions concerning the transmission of the Christian faith. We are not left to inferences, deductions, and “funny, internal feelings.” He gave us the Church. What follows below is a brief survey of some of the Biblical and historical evidence for this claim.

The Final Authority Established by Christ: the Teaching Church

All Christians agree that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority. During his earthly ministry, He was the Final Authority. His authority superseded the Old Testament, human reason, Jewish Tradition, and the power of the state. But after His ascension, He did not leave us without direction. Before He ascended, He made provisions for a continuing doctrinal authority.

Jesus commissioned his apostles to teach with authority:

Jesus told his disciples, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

Jesus sent his apostles to teach, and promised to remain with them. Many passages of Scripture show that Christ’s authority accompanied their teaching:

• “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” (John 20:21)
  “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
  “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18; Matt. 18:18)*

These texts answer our question. Christ did give us a rule of faith before His ascension. He gave us the teaching of the apostles. It is important to note that Christ never mentions the writings of the apostles. He gave them no command to write, and never restricted their authority to the written word. His authority attached to their persons and their teaching.

The Apostles Appointed Successors to Teach with Authority

Protestants usually admit that the apostles taught with authority. They deny that the apostles transmitted this authority to their successors. However, Scripture and history refute them.

Scripture:

• “They appointed presbyters for them in each church.” (Acts 14:23)
  [Paul to Titus] “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might . . . appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you.” (Titus 1:5)
  [Paul to Timothy] “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Timothy 2:2)
  “For a bishop as God’s steward must . . . be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.” (Titus 1:7-9)*

These texts show clearly that the apostles appointed the bishops and priests (presbyters) who took over the leadership of the infant church. They also show that leaders were 1) stewards of the Gospel, 2) given authority to teach and refute false doctrine, 3) ordered to entrust this charge to others…

The heart of the Protestant apologetic for sola scriptura is not the teaching of Christ, but the alleged failure of the Church’s magisterial authority. Consider Luther’s famous argument at Leipzig: Councils can err; therefore Scripture is the final authority. The Protestant position infers canonical authority from inspiration. But this is not a valid inference. God can inspire a text without intending that text to serve as a final authority for all matters doctrinal.

 

[alwayswill]

Until the Bible can literally speak to you when you open it, and tell you what passages mean, your interpretation is the ultimate authority.

Nope:
my interpretation does not carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

But writings breathed out by God do.

Scriptures are the highest authority BECAUSE of what Scripture are.
Writings breathed out by God

 

[alwayswill]

Nope:
my interpretation does not carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne.

But writings breathed out by God do.

Scriptures are the highest authority BECAUSE of what Scripture are.
Writings breathed out by God

straight to the point:
Do Catholics agree or disagree that writings breathed out by God have the same authority as God speaking from his throne?

 

[Duane1966]

Nope:
my interpretation does not carry the same authority as God speaking from His throne
But writings breathed out by God do.

You say that, but your practice shows otherwise.

You said this little nugget here:

After a decade of being in leadership, and being a lay speaker/preacher, I left a liberal Methodist Church for that very reason… i tried for years to reason through Scripture: I was unable to initiate a change: so I left

You just showed solo scriptura in action. The church you left, they believed they were following Scripture also I am sure. But you used your interpretive authority to say they were wrong, and left them. You did this:

By rejecting the interpretive authority of the Church, the individual makes himself autonomous. He might not think of himself as being autonomous or rebellious; he most likely thinks of himself as following God, by following [his own interpretation of] God’s Word as contained in Sacred Scripture. But by disregarding the divinely established interpretive authority of the Church, the individual usurps to himself an authority that Christ entrusted to the Church. This is why, according to Mathison, taking final interpretive authority to oneself makes the individual guilty of “rebellious autonomy.”…

But there are two ways to make oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. One is a direct way and the other is an indirect way. The direct way is to subject all theological questions directly to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is the solo scriptura position. Because it is direct, the nature of the position is quite transparent; we can see clearly in such a case that the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

The indirect way of making oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority is more complicated and subtle. In this case the individual, based upon his own interpretation of Scripture, either establishes or chooses an ecclesial community that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important. Then, he ‘submits’ to this institution so long as it continues to speak and act in accordance with his own interpretation of Scripture. If it deviates from his own interpretation of Scripture in matters he deems important, he repeats the process of either establishing or choosing an institution or congregation that conforms to his own interpretation in matters he considers to be essential or important.

In both the direct and indirect ways, the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. But his doing so is more difficult to see in the indirect case because he appears to be submitting to the interpretive authority of a body of persons other than himself. Yet, because he has established or selected this body of persons on the basis of their conformity to his own interpretation of Scripture, and because he ‘submits’ to them only so long as they agree with his interpretation on matters he considers to be essential or important, therefore in actuality his ‘submission’ to this body is in fact ‘submission’ to himself. To submit to others only when one agrees with them, is to submit to oneself. But submission to oneself is an oxymoron, because it is indistinguishable from not submitting at all, from doing whatever one wants. Yet because this indirect way of being one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority maintains the appearance of being in submission to another body of persons, it allows those who practice it to believe falsely that they are genuinely submitting to another body of persons, and not acting as their own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. Accumulating for themselves this body of persons to whom they ‘submit’ allows them to remain under a delusion that they are submitting to the Church.45-calledtocommunion.com

This sounds incredibly familiar.

 

[alwayswill]

You say that, but your practice shows otherwise.

You said this little nugget here:You just showed solo scriptura in action. The church you left, they believed they were following Scripture also I am sure. But you used your interpretive authority to say they were wrong, and left them. You did this:This sounds incredibly familiar.

nope: I know I could be completely wrong:
I have been before and I will be again
(and btw if you didn’t know; the liberal side of the UMC does not think Scripture is inerrant)

 

[Duane1966]

nope: I know I could be completely wrong:
I have been before and I will be again
(and btw if you didn’t know; the liberal side of the UMC does not think Scripture is inerrant)

I never said they did, I said they felt they were following Scripture.

But you did leave, and you made it clear it was because you interpreted Scripture differently than them, ergo, solo scriptura in action.

 

[alwayswill]

I never said they did, I said they felt they were following Scripture.

But you did leave, and you made it clear it was because you interpreted Scripture differently than them, ergo, solo scriptura in action.

ok: got it…sinners disagree on the meanings of God’s words.
No denial here

for ex:
I could have been sitting in front of Jesus at His Sermon on the Mount:

the next day, while speaking to my friend ( who was also there): I find that we disagree with the meaning of what He said.

Is the authority of Jesus diminished because sinners don’t agree on the meaning of His words?

 

[Duane1966]

ok: got it…sinners disagree on the meanings of God’s words.
No denial here

for ex:
I could have been sitting in front of Jesus at His Sermon on the Mount:

the next day, while speaking to my friend ( who was also there): I find that we disagree with the meaning of what He said.

Is the authority of Jesus diminished because sinners don’t agree on the meaning of His words?

No, but the effect of His teachings are undoubtedly diminished.

 

[alwayswill]

No, but the effect of His teachings are undoubtedly diminished.

ok great:
The authority of Jesus speaking is undiminished by conflicting interpretations.

in fact : nothing can diminish the authority of Jesus: even if religious leaders thought He was a demon processed, half breed, liar; His authority would not be diminished in the slightest way.

Is the authority of writings breathed out by God diminished by conflicting interpretations?

 

[alwayswill]

Looking forward to your response to this question.

straight to the point:
Do Catholics agree or disagree that writings breathed out by God have the same authority as God speaking from his throne?

 

[Duane1966]

ok great:
The authority of Jesus speaking is undiminished by conflicting interpretations.

in fact : nothing can diminish the authority of Jesus: even if religious leaders thought He was a demon processed, half breed, liar; His authority would not be diminished in the slightest way.

Is the authority of writings breathed out by God diminished by conflicting interpretations?

The authority is not diminished, but the message He wanted to convey, without a doubt is.

Just as the authority Christ gave the Apostles is not diminished in those they handed it on to, even if you reject their authority.

 

[alwayswill]

The authority is not diminished, but the message He wanted to convey, without a doubt is.

Just as the authority Christ gave the Apostles is not diminished in those they handed it on to, even if you reject their authority.

:
thank you; thank you; thank you !

if the authority of God, Scripture, or the Church is not diminished by differing interpretations:

then when discussing the authority of Scripture: there is no point to bring up differing interpretations:

Do Catholics agree or disagree that writings breathed out by God have the same authority as God speaking from his throne?

 

[Duane1966]

:
thank you; thank you; thank you !

if the authority of God, Scripture, or the Church is not diminished by differing interpretations:

then when discussing the authority of Scripture: there is no point to bring up differing interpretations:

Ahhh, but saying that authority is not diminished, is a far cry from saying something is the only authority, or ultimate authority, or only infallible rule, as you try to say with sola scriptura. In fact, bringing up different interpretations, proves that this authority is not a good rule, because this form of authority has proven to be, as Peter puts it:

*In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. *

Which means Scripture, while God-breathed, needs interpreting by ones given Divine Authority. And if you are given Divine Authority to preach, and teach, and interpret, and bind, and decide what is and isn’t Scripture, than your Authority is in some way equal to Scripture.

 

[Duane1966]

o Catholics agree or disagree that writings breathed out by God have the same authority as God speaking from his throne?

Agree. Just as I believe that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has the authority to speak in Christ’s name, which is why a Catholic could never affirm sola scriptura, because Jesus, nor those He granted Divine Authority to, ever taught it. And looking at the Reformation, it is easy to see why it is not taught.

 

[alwayswill]

Ahhh, but saying that authority is not diminished, is a far cry from saying something is the only authority, or ultimate authority, or only infallible rule, as you try to say with sola scriptura. .

I never said it was the only authority
I have said Scripture has the same authority as God speaking from His throne

Do Catholics agree or disagree that writings breathed out by God have the same authority as God speaking from His throne?