Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[Lenten_ashes]

lol! I’m not suggesting the Father forsook His Son in that sense. We know that Jesus went down to the Spirits in prison, yet His body was in the tomb. I’m suggesting, that during His passion and for three days, the Father forsook (sacrificed) the body and blood of His Son. This Body and blood did all that the Spirit willed, yet still tasted of death!

And that bolded part is yet another deep theological discussion to be had. lol

In any event, I think these mysteries of faith are classics examples of why we need the magisterium to separate fact from fiction. SS is a safeguard of sorts that only gives the reader the very basics of the faith. We can watch a Zenith standard definition TV from 1985 with the lines rolling up and down the screen or we can watch the giant plasma offered by the Catholic church with crystal clear definition.

Of course the protestant would say, yes but you have a clear picture of the wrong movie lol, and so the debates drive on

 

[rcwitness]

And that bolded part is yet another deep theological discussion to be had. lol

In any event, I think these mysteries of faith are classics examples of why we need the magisterium to separate fact from fiction. SS is a safeguard of sorts that only gives the reader the very basics of the faith. We can watch a Zenith standard definition TV from 1985 with the lines rolling up and down the screen or we can watch the giant plasma offered by the Catholic church with crystal clear definition.

Of course the protestant would say, yes but you have a clear picture of the wrong movie lol, and so the debates drive on

Hey!!! My parish doesn’t have one of those!!!

But, yes these things all stir up related matters in the faith. I think the Catholic faith acknowledges that God did establish a core of leaders to pronounce and declare matters with an infallible confirmation. Scripture is too “all over the place” without Him leading us all in a personal AND communal way.

 

[alwayswill]

My friend, I’m unsure of exactly what you mean “by SUCH a claim”? If you’d cafe to explain further, I’d be happy to reply, amplify and explain the TRUE meaning so fht shared passages.

God Bless you,

Patrick

here is where I think you are confused on the Sola Scriptura practice / position

No SS practicing Protestant will ever say the Scripture is in error:

You can quote any 100 verses you choose and we will say we agree with them.
Scripture is inerrant and infallible 100% of the time

but if you ask us if we agree with an interpretation? … we may or may not

 

[rcwitness]

but if you ask us if we agree with an interpretation? … we may or may not

I agree! It’s all settled.

 

[Kliska]

I agree! It’s all settled.

 

[benhur]

Just as a caution, the hardest cultural bias to notice is the one that impacts our own time and place. We naturally tend to regard our own cultural bias as “enriched insight” while the bias of another culture as a limitation, or blinder - or, “not the healthiest environment”.

A few decades ago I would have said sex was King in America. Now it is a god. To put it another way, 2016 America I am “not sure this is the healthiest environment” to objectively evaluate another culture’s attitude on sex. We have too much blinder and limitation. We don’t know how much enriched insight the people who developed ancient marian doctrine, monasticism, celibacy, etc may have had, that our own culture has lost.

Hi C,

I do agree and hate it when our culture looks down on past cultures especially in science. I do not like the term ‘progressive’ which is sometimes a facade for regressive, even old fashioned as in sin (abortion,gay rights , marriage etc).

I hopefully am not doing that when referring to some views Christians have had a tendency towards in the past. A balance is required. We are not Gnostic thinking all flesh is evil,and how could a holy God really become flesh. Still, like the Corinthians that Paul had to guide and correct for thinking abstinence was best and even divorcing to be "single’’ to serve God is the other extreme.

The best I can say is yes we have our own challenges today. But I do reject those who say we are all sex crazed and therefore can not possibly accept Mary not having sex and other children either. Yet ,there is nothing new under the sun. The pride of today may not be in seeing others faults or faults in other times , but in not seeing them likewise in our own time.That is we have the same challenges. I think it is possible for a Christian to evaluate fairly just as unfairly another Christians words and actions from another time, as we will be by others in the future.

I think any patristic father can be seen as having good and bad stuff just as any reformer or counter-reformer.Even Paul sometimes spoke for himself , and not as “from the Lord”, (though an apostle speaking is still very weighty yet with a difference).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Keep in mind the Gnostics, the Mormons, the Muslims (Koran refers heavily to Christ), and many ancient Christian religions also claim God as their “autopilot” for** their** scriptures, for their canon. Those Christians who now seek to add some books to the NT, and who print bibles omitting Paul’s passages about homosexuality and marriage, also claim the same divine guidance - or autopilot.

Among various competing “divine” autopilots, on what basis does one choose which autopilot is trustworthy?

As more New Testaments are printed with the Gospel of Mary, not in an appendix but mixed among the familiar 4, the role of the Magisterium in 2016 will become clearer.

Yes, we are all clamoring for a fail proof method of determining, “What hath God really said”, and who has it right, and that since the garden of Eden.

A misapplication or misuse of the Auto Pilot does not deter the Real McCoy. God spoke in the garden. It went terribly bad. God continued and continues to still “speak”, however. That it is the eye (or ear) of the beholder is just as important as the delivery method.

Blessings.

 

[rcwitness]

Even Paul sometimes spoke for himself , and not as “from the Lord”, (though an apostle speaking is still very weighty yet with a difference).

Yeah. Good thought. I assume u r referring to 1 Cor. 7?

He seems to separate his “wisdom” from God’s Teaching. Very interesting. I think we can classify priestly celebacy as the Church’s wisdom and not God’s Teaching.

 

[benhur]

Thanks for that quote, benhur. .

I ask your feelings about Romans 3 because that was my final major objection to the Catholic church. Seemed very clear to me that everybody is guilty of sin according to that. But upon further examination of that chapter we see that Paul is referring to Psalm 14 and that Psalm is talking about the non-believers as it distinguishes between God’s people in 14:4.

It’s kind of like my former ingrained view of Jesus on the cross saying “Why have you forsaken me” in Matt 27:46. We know he quotes from the Psalms there but I was taught as a protestant that at this moment God is not with Him because of sin, which seems plausible on the surface, but not so much when you consider the belief in Trinity.

And I do think there are exceptions as we know Jesus did not sin, and i think retarded people don’t sin, neither do babies.

Thanks for the talk.

The Lord be with you.

Hi La,

"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile", Romans 3: 9 and 22

Not sure where one can continue to make that separation of Jew and gentile. It is there only for a moment in Ch 3, almost sandwiched in with two slices of bread that both say ,“Jew and gentile alike”, the ultimate conclusion. Of course we are righteous in Christ by faith as the Jew, or gentile was and is also . I see it more as separation between believer and non believer.

As far as Matt, Jesus was somehow forsaken , for why else would he ask. He certainly died (His flesh), as sin required it (not His sin but ours). It must have been the human nature certainly felt momentarily alone, covered in sin. It is not a pleasant sight, not even for the Father. I mean David felt forsaken also, but on another level did not, else why would he tell his Lord how he felt?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yeah. Good thought. I assume u r referring to 1 Cor. 7?

He seems to separate his “wisdom” from God’s Teaching. Very interesting. I think we can classify priestly celebacy as the Church’s wisdom and not God’s Teaching.

Hi rc,

Well, I think wisdom would teach that it is good for some priests (celibacy) but not institutionally as for all priests.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile", Romans 3: 9 and 22

Not sure where one can continue to make that separation of Jew and gentile. It is there only for a moment in Ch 3, almost sandwiched in with two slices of bread that both say ,“Jew and gentile alike”, the ultimate conclusion. Of course we are righteous in Christ by faith as the Jew, or gentile was and is also . I see it more as separation between believer and non believer.

As far as Matt, Jesus was somehow forsaken , for why else would he ask. He certainly died (His flesh), as sin required it (not His sin but ours). It must have been the human nature certainly felt momentarily alone, covered in sin. It is not a pleasant sight, not even for the Father. I mean David felt forsaken also, but on another level did not, else why would he tell his Lord how he felt?

Blessings

Greetings.

I think Jeus is saying this all looks terrible, like defeat, but it’s actually victory. We see the ending of psalm 22 that confirms it.

Do you believe that babies and retarded people sin, benhur?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

r.Even Paul sometimes spoke for himself , and not as “from the Lord”, (though an apostle speaking is still very weighty yet with a difference).

Blessings

Very good point that often goes unnoticed

 

[alwayswill]

…
I think any patristic father can be seen as having good and bad stuff just as any reformer or counter-reformer.Even Paul sometimes spoke for himself , and not as “from the Lord”, (though an apostle speaking is still very weighty yet with a difference).

Blessings

Very good point that often goes unnoticed

???
Are you saying that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is not a God breathed verse?
Are you saying that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is Paul’s and not the word of God?

 

[rcwitness]

???
Are you saying that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is not a God breathed verse?
Are you saying that 1 Corinthians 7:12 is Paul’s and not the word of God?

Paul, himself, is distinguishing a command of God from a discipline he sees as wise. He was careful to do so, and inspired by God to do so.

 

[alwayswill]

Paul, himself, is distinguishing a command of God from a discipline he sees as wise. He was careful to do so, and inspired by God to do so.

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, interprets it as

“St. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. (Calmet) — Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord”

do you agree?

 

[rcwitness]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, interprets it as

“St. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. (Calmet) — Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord”

do you agree?

I do not agree, personally.

I believe Paul was inspired to offer this advice on what a converted Christian is free to do. The Christian is free to remain married or free to separate.

It’s not a command, just a matter of fact. Paul acknowledges that it is not a command. The marriage is not Sacramental, so it has no binding law, yet Paul is advising what “should” be done, not what “must” be done. This is why it is not a command.

 

[PJM]

here is where I think you are confused on the Sola Scriptura practice / position

No SS practicing Protestant will ever say the Scripture is in error:

You can quote any 100 verses you choose and we will say we agree with them.
Scripture is inerrant and infallible 100% of the time

but if you ask us if we agree with an interpretation? … we may or may not

ahhhhh,

BUT are “agrreeing” & ACTUALLY Believing them the same thing:shrug:

And does such an “agreement” demand belief?

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[alwayswill]

ahhhhh,

BUT are “agrreeing” & ACTUALLY Believing them the same thing:shrug:

And does such an “agreement” demand belief?

God Bless you,

Patrick

YES
Absolutely

You can quote any 100 verses you choose and we will say we agree with them AND believe them.
Scripture is inerrant and infallible 100% of the time…

I’m not sure what you have heard; but Sola Scriptura practicing Christians believe all the verses of Scripture

 

[rcwitness]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, interprets it as

“St. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. (Calmet) — Not the Lord. That is, it is the command of the Lord”

do you agree?

I see you have cut out the rest of the statement in the commentary.

St. Paul answers, guided as he was, by the particular lights of the Holy Ghost. (Calmet) —*Not the Lord.That is, it is the command of the Lord, for such even as are separated, not to marry to another, but when I advised the unmarried not to marry, this is a counsel, or advice, not a divine precept, which doctrine he repeats again before the end of this chapter, ver. 25, 28, and 39. —If any brother have a wife that believeth not,&c. St. Paul speaks of two that were joined by a contract of marriage, when both of them were infidels, and that one of them is converted to the Christian faith: we do not read of any precept that Christ gave, as to those marriages, but the apostle seems to order by his apostolical authority, that they continue as man and wife, unless the party that remains still an infidel, will needs depart; then, says the apostle,letsuch an onedepart.There is also another case, to wit, when the man or woman remaining an infidel, will not live without continual injuries and blasphemies against God and the Catholic religion, so that there can be nopeaceon that account betwixt them. In these two cases, according to the canons of the Church, it is looked upon as no marriage, so that the party converted may marry another. And this seems grounded on the reason, which the apostle here gave,that God hath called us in peace.(Witham)

I do not agree, personally.

I believe Paul was inspired to offer this advice on what a converted Christian is free to do. The Christian is free to remain married or free to separate.

It’s not a command, just a matter of fact. Paul acknowledges that it is not a command. The marriage is not Sacramental, so it has no binding law, yet Paul is advising what “should” be done, not what “must” be done. This is why it is not a command.

I believe my comments are in line with Catholic commentaries, like this from The USCCB:

• [7:12–14]*To the rest: marriages in which only one partner is a baptized Christian. Jesus’ prohibition against divorce is not addressed to them, but Paul extends the principle of nonseparation to such unions, provided they are marked by peacefulness and shared sanctification.

 

[pablope]

YES
Absolutely

You can quote any 100 verses you choose and we will say we agree with them AND believe them.
Scripture is inerrant and infallible 100% of the time…

I’m not sure what you have heard; but Sola Scriptura practicing Christians believe all the verses of Scripture

Just a little caveat…Scripture cannot be infallible, being infallible denotes some actions, or incapable of error…

On your last statement…I will add a little caveat too…a SS practicing Christian believes the interpretations given them by their pastors as to what the verses of scripture mean…that is why many cannot agree on what the verses actually mean.