Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura

[surritter]

…I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

Suppose you “figure out what it all means” and then I “figure out what it all means” for myself, and ten other people “figure out what it all means” for themselves.

If we all come to different conclusions about some important religious doctrine, who is right? This conundrum highlights the lack of logic in the philosophy you are espousing. (And when I say lack of logic, I don’t mean that as a personal dig; I mean that the multiple conclusions violate the rules of the science called logic, which dictate that truths can’t yield contradictory conclusions when properly interpreted.)

 

[hellopeople]

Suppose you “figure out what it all means” and then I “figure out what it all means” for myself, and ten other people “figure out what it all means” for themselves.

If we all come to different conclusions about some important religious doctrine, who is right? This conundrum highlights the lack of logic in the philosophy you are espousing. (And when I say lack of logic, I don’t mean that as a personal dig; I mean that the multiple conclusions violate the rules of the science called logic, which dictate that truths can’t yield contradictory conclusions when properly interpreted.)

Well, throughout the centuries many different people have come up with conclusions on how to interpret the Bible. Origen was one to use allegory wherever he could. Augustine used more of a literal approach to the Bible. According to Augustine, if you do not understand a passage: first check if your grammar and punctuation is right, then see if you can deduce it from its context, then see if it either promotes love of neighbor or God, and if multiple interpretations meet these criteria, either is acceptable.

Many other scholars have come up with similar ideas on how to correctly interpret scripture. But, just accepting the church’s interpretations doesn’t solve the problem of which interpretations is correct.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe in the authority of the church. You could say that the church canonized the Bible, but the church of 325 is different than it is now. And to be perfectly honest, the church didn’t cement a canon until the 1500’s.

No, hello. This is not being perfectly honest, which you will see if you are willing to look at the history of the canon. A dogmatic statement was made at Trent because the Reformers were removing some of the books. When people depart from the Apostolic faith, the Church is required to take action.

Anyway, I don't accept the authority of the church.  Would I say that authority is from only Scripture?  No, I accept other people's commentaries and opinions of the Bible, but I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

What do you think Jesus meant when he told the Church “he who hears you, hears me”?

Why don’t you believe the promises Jesus gave to the Church?

 

[Vile_Servant]

No, I accept other people’s commentaries and opinions of the Bible, but I think it is up to me to figure out what it all means, not up to the church to tell me what it all means.

in other words, you only accept your own authority regarding God’s teaching and commandments? Some Christians call it the papacy of the individual.

 

[twb1621]

Many of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox derive from the Petrine and Pauline bishoprics appointed in Antioch and points East of Rome. They are actually older than those lines that came later from Rome, because they were founded two decades before the two Apostles ministered in Rome together.

Thanks Guanophore, I realize what you are saying but the establishment of a bishopric in a given region is not the issue. As you and I know, Peter did not establish his bishopric in Rome until after his travels proclaiming the Word just as Jesus directed him to do. That does not reduce Peter’s authority or selection by Jesus to serve Him as His Vicar until His return. Christ was clear in His warning of the corruption within and without His Church also but asked perseverance. Now because Christ had Judas, a traitor in His fold, should the apostles have abandoned Him? Or because the warnings Jesus told us have occurred at times, should we abandon His Church? The EO came under the authority of the papacy for centuries before the separation occurred and are today, with the Church in Rome working together to alleviate that separation and are progressing in there efforts. The issue I see here is the difference between recognizing the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the recognition of what apostolic succession represents.

 

[twb1621]

Are you stating that The Catholic Church alone insists that only it alone has valid Apostolic Succession, and rejects such in The Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, I’d like to see some confirmation of that since that is the opposite of what I was taught in The Catholic Church.

The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.

.

If you wouldn’t mind rereading my post, I asked from you your source. I would be glad to answer your questions if you would provide me your reference. You confuse the Guidence of the Holy Spirit with a generic reference to Apostolic Succession.

 

[hellopeople]

No, hello. This is not being perfectly honest, which you will see if you are willing to look at the history of the canon. A dogmatic statement was made at Trent because the Reformers were removing some of the books. When people depart from the Apostolic faith, the Church is required to take action.

What do you think Jesus meant when he told the Church “he who hears you, hears me”?

Why don’t you believe the promises Jesus gave to the Church?

The church did not exist until after Jesus’ death. Also, I just don’t accept the church as being authoritative. Did Jesus intend on Peter to start his church? It seems that way when reading the passage in Matthew. Did he intend for this authority to extend 2,000 years. I kind of doubt it.

 

[hellopeople]

in other words, you only accept your own authority regarding God’s teaching and commandments? Some Christians call it the papacy of the individual.

OK. I just think that the church is not any more qualified than protestant or even secular scholars when it comes to interpretations of the Bible. I am sure people within the church have slightly differing ideas of how the Bible is interpreted. I mean, I don’t know how the church decrees how something should be interpreted, but I would imagine they get a bunch of Catholic scholars together and as a group support a certain proposition. But within these meetings, their must be some differences in opinion between the scholars. Right?

So, I am just wondering…do you accept the church’s interpretations to be true because:

1. The holy spirit guides the church so that the interpretations are always correct.
2. God holds true to what the church says in heaven, so the interpretations are right be default.
3. You just have so much faith in the Catholic church that you believe they should be most accurate and the authority on the subject.

 

[twb1621]

…

*Are you stating that The Catholic Church alone insists that only it alone has valid Apostolic Succession, and rejects such in The Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, I’d like to see some confirmation of that since that is the opposite of what I was taught in The Catholic Church. *

What I said was;

“I would be interested to know what official source (document) issued under the authority of the Western or Roman Catholic Church recognizes any other Church or faith as continuing independently of the Chair of Peter with Apostolic Succession. Further, there has been and there is a substantial growth in the desire and continuing conferences within the Roman and Orthodox Churches (which is currently causing heated debate among some within the Orthodoxy), to return under the papacy. This is evident when reading commentaries of Orthodox officials in some of their own web sites. There also is a difference between claiming full apostolic succession under the Chair of Peter and claiming apostolic succession from a select number of regional Bishoprics after separating from the centuries old recognized authority of St. Peter in Rome. The Catholic Church (Rome) has remained clear on this… Peace.”

In other words, no I did not say they did not originate with apostolic succession. However, the separation of east from west was not only a separation from the papacy, but from other like bishoprics also of apostolic succession that remained faithful in recognition, union and to the authority of the papacy. It is a sad situation but one that will come to resolution and the fact it is sad and should not have occurred is recognized by both sides. I did ask for your source for your position which you have not provided yet and I am sincerely interested in knowing what you referred to.

The point has been made here that The Catholic Church particularly, exclusively and perpetually, is excused from accountability and norming because it has Apostolic Succession and this keeps it and it itself exclusively from any possibility of error. This argument, IMHO, falls flat as we recall that it declares all the Orthodox Churches to be wrong and yet that they have valid Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church itself seems to reject the argument of Catholics here.

Your statement is extremely generalized and as such misleading as well as an expression of your misunderstanding Catholicism. No person in the Catholic Church is generally infallible. Infallibility pertains only to the teachings of the faith and that based on faith in the covenant of Christ with His Church as guided by the Holy spirit. To believe in scripture as the written Inspired Word of God one MUST take and accept ALL of scripture. This includes the covenant Jesus made with His Church. That it would not fail, that it would be guided by the Holy Spirit, that He would never abandon her and that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. Judas was an apostle but fell to corruption. Does that then mean the remaining apostles should have abandoned Jesus as a failed or false Messiah? At times of corruption within the Church, who should have abandoned her according to scripture? Or is it not true that Jesus even with His covenant warned of pending corruption both within and outside of His Church. Be clear that I am not saying the Orthodox Churches are equal to Judas in there actions, not at all, but by separating, did they follow the direction of the inspired Word of God as is attested to;

Ephesians CH4; 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 **So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. ****8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. ****9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. ****10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. **

Of course there are other verses but these clearly make the point. The Catholic Church is specific in regard to the issues of contention just as is the Orthodox Church which is what they are genuinely striving to resolve. But these issues do not consist of the majority of teachings of the Orthodox Churches as you generalize.

You raised the question elsewhere “where did Jesus say anything about the Catholic Church” but such questions are expressions of desperation IMO. Jesus sent His apostles to spread the Gospel to all nations. This meaning throughout the world, Universally. Jesus had no reason to name His Church (the unified body of His faithful) like some business for advertising, He knew what He wanted to be proclaimed, knew the proclamation was the Truth and sent the Apostles and others to do just that. As you should and probably do know, the term Christians was a label attached to the followers of Christ in Antioch by those who recognized their faith. The Faithful body of Christ was later more widely labeled the “Universal’ Church or “Catholic” Church, again by outsiders. The Church merely maintained itself through this recognition after be recognized as this for centuries so this issue is baseless.

Did Jesus establish a body of Faithful…yes. Is a body of Faithful also a Church…yes. Is there unbroken lineage of the teachings of Christ in the Catholic Church…yes. And is there scriptural support for the establishment of a Hierarchy of the Church Jesus founded and established through His Apostles… absolutely.

continued next post.

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post;

Now as far as Sola Scriptura is concerned; we know scripture tells us Jesus made a covenant to never abandon His Church, that she would never fall and that she would always be guided by the Holy Spirit until His return; Hence the requirment for apostolic succession. We also know according to scripture that in all things Jesus maintains primacy and that by the Father’s will, all things He shall reconcile to Himself. He even went as far as to warn us of the deceit and corruption that would arise at times both from outside and within His Church including the distortion of His Word and the deception of the many, yet asks for perseverance.

Based on the principles of sola scriptura, who has in the past or does possess the righteousness to question the commitment and ability of our Lord to oversee the Church He founded with His blood, and so love her in her devotion and purge her of her corruption as, how and when He determines appropriate to Himself?

Has Our Lord not always had the authority to reconcile all things in heaven and on earth to Himself according to His Word and our Father in Heaven? Does man know better than God and can man do better than God overseeing His own Church for man to believe his own intervention is required to “reestablish” and modify church precepts? Can any man explain how the existence of so many “Christian” faiths is not a testament to man’s weakness of faith and trust in our Savior’s abilities to oversee His Church of which He has always been the High Priest?

No where in Scripture does it say the Church Jesus founded would end, become corrupt and fail or be reestablished or revised at any time or by any man before His return. Just the opposite is true. God proclaims through scripture everything but these things will occur. Yet many have been mislead into accepting the personal beliefs and disbeliefs of individual men and women who did not have the faith or knowledge to accept the complete teachings of our Lord, establishing their own faiths through their adopted beliefs based on individual interpretations.

If one cannot provide justifiable answers to these questions perhaps further thought into the issues raised would be in order.

The final question; if in fact the Catholic Church was not the true Church founded by Jesus as some were lead to believe, one would have to know which Faith was the True Faith. After all, there must be one (and only one) because the Bible attests to it and to the fact it must be visible, obvious, and is of only “one God, one faith, one body and one baptism”… So which one was established by Jesus through the Apostles and their successors and has the lineage in the teachings of scripture since His ministry without interruption as Jesus’ covenant attests AND has all the Characteristics to identify it Biblically?

 

[Mea_Culpa]

The church did not exist until after Jesus’ death. Also, I just don’t accept the church as being authoritative.

OK, well if you don’t accept it, I guess that settles it.

Did Jesus intend on Peter to start his church? It seems that way when reading the passage in Matthew. Did he intend for this authority to extend 2,000 years. I kind of doubt it.

OK, I’m convinced.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Well, throughout the centuries many different people have come up with conclusions on how to interpret the Bible. Origen was one to use allegory wherever he could. Augustine used more of a literal approach to the Bible. According to Augustine, if you do not understand a passage: first check if your grammar and punctuation is right, then see if you can deduce it from its context, then see if it either promotes love of neighbor or God, and if multiple interpretations meet these criteria, either is acceptable.

Many other scholars have come up with similar ideas on how to correctly interpret scripture. But, just accepting the church’s interpretations doesn’t solve the problem of which interpretations is correct.

Yes, there have been many notions of how to interpret and use the Bible. And hence many different interpretations. But Jesus said, “You will know the truth.” How, then, can we know the truth, when different incompatible interpretations are offered to us? I suppose we can just decide for ourselves, but does Jesus mean that what is true for us is not the same as what is true for someone else? No universal truth?

Perhaps this is where modern day Relativism comes from. “Hey, if it works for you, man.” Toke, toke.

 

[hellopeople]

Yes, there have been many notions of how to interpret and use the Bible. And hence many different interpretations. But Jesus said, “You will know the truth.” How, then, can we know the truth, when different incompatible interpretations are offered to us? I suppose we can just decide for ourselves, but does Jesus mean that what is true for us is not the same as what is true for someone else? No universal truth?

Perhaps this is where modern day Relativism comes from. “Hey, if it works for you, man.” Toke, toke.

OK, so how do you know the church is the truth?

 

[surritter]

OK, so how do you know the church is the truth?

Simply study the history of Christianity. Since Jesus gave the Apostles the task of preserving the truth, those Apostles and the successors they designated are the bearers of truth, when it comes to faith and morals.

If you think each person is the arbiter of truth, then we have the problem of relativism (opposing premises that all claim to be true). If you think that Protestant groups are the arbiter of truth, then you have the problem of their rebellion which separated them from the lineage of the Apostles. And if you believe that the Bible is the sole arbiter of truth, there is the problem of how to interpret those words, and also the problem of explaining what the bearer of truth was in the centuries between the death of the last Apostle and the acceptance of the New Testament.

For these reasons, it becomes pretty obvious that the Catholic Church – despite its oh-so-human members and leaders – is the bearer of truth, and is preserved as such by the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was promised to us in the Gospels.

 

[mackbrislawn]

OK, so how do you know the church is the truth?

Surriter gives a good answer.

But if you reject that answer, that means there is no way of knowing the truth, and Jesus was lying.

Of course, the devil is trying his damndest to make us reject the truth when we see it, and so comes up with all sorts of arguments why it’s not the truth.

 

[inkaneer]

OK, so how do you know the church is the truth?

Because scripture says so. Try 1 Timothy 3:15 where Paul calls the church the house of God and the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[inkaneer]

The church did not exist until after Jesus’ death. Also, I just don’t accept the church as being authoritative. Did Jesus intend on Peter to start his church? It seems that way when reading the passage in Matthew. Did he intend for this authority to extend 2,000 years. I kind of doubt it.

Well what is your doubt based on? Is there a scripture passage that leads you to doubt that Christ intended his Church to retain authority. I, for one, see no time limitation on Peter’s binding and loosening power. Do you? I see no time limitation on the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. Do you? In fact, the only limitation I see is Jesus telling His church that He would remain with it until the end of the Age and unless I am wrong, which I can assure you, I am not, the Age has not ended.

But doesn’t it seem really odd that Jesus would establish a church and give it some authority and then just forget about it? Especially when that contradicts the promise that Jesus made about remaining with the church until the end of the age. That sort of makes Jesus a liar, doesn’t it? But that is the crux of your position.

 

[hellopeople]

Surriter gives a good answer.

But if you reject that answer, that means there is no way of knowing the truth, and Jesus was lying.

Of course, the devil is trying his damndest to make us reject the truth when we see it, and so comes up with all sorts of arguments why it’s not the truth.

So if I am right, Jesus was lying…I don’t think so.

 

[hellopeople]

Well what is your doubt based on? Is there a scripture passage that leads you to doubt that Christ intended his Church to retain authority. I, for one, see no time limitation on Peter’s binding and loosening power. Do you? I see no time limitation on the gates of hell not prevailing over the church. Do you? In fact, the only limitation I see is Jesus telling His church that He would remain with it until the end of the Age and unless I am wrong, which I can assure you, I am not, the Age has not ended.

But doesn’t it seem really odd that Jesus would establish a church and give it some authority and then just forget about it? Especially when that contradicts the promise that Jesus made about remaining with the church until the end of the age. That sort of makes Jesus a liar, doesn’t it? But that is the crux of your position.

You are the one reading a succession into the passage. There is nothing about succession in the passage, Jesus is just talking to Peter.

 

[kepha1]

You are the one reading a succession into the passage. There is nothing about succession in the passage, Jesus is just talking to Peter.

The passage that inkaneer is talking about is as follows:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

hellopeople, if what you are saying is true, then the Great Commission ended with the death of the last Apostle since there is no succession, and the authority of Jesus on earth comes to an end. Furthermore, if what you are saying is true, the Apostles, in order to fulfil Jesus command to “make disciples of all nations” must have flew in planes in order to make disciples over the entire planet during their lifetime. Another possibility that would fit your denial of succession is that the end of the age occured after the death of the last Apostle, since Jesus left the Church and gave us a book 300 years later. Forgive my sarcasm but your position is totally lacking in common sense.

Who are the “them” that Jesus spoke to in the above passage? Two verses up:

16 The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.

Obviously, Jesus is talking to the Apostles, not just to Peter. Jesus just spoke to Peter and only Peter when He gave him the keys.

Apostolic authority comes from God, and is passed down, it is explained here