Scripturally Disprove Sola Scriptura

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel of 12

I have read what you posted.

I get the distinct impression what you posted addresses the two word sentence fragment Sola Scriptura and not what I have posted.

I get the impression that what you posted is a response to the proposition that “Scripture is the only authority” not “Scripture is the only infallible authority”.

I also get the impression that what you posted is a cut’n’paste job from some source somewhere. Otherwise it would seem very odd to create an original 3 page post that does not direct the original definition of the phrase.

Gabriel of 12;
Hello, because there are very different distinct views and belief’s what “Sola Scriptura” means, I refer you to the original “Sola Scriptura” defined by the inventer Martin Luther. Truly I tell you, this is my post, the only cut and paste were the scriptures I provided for this thread.

In summary, any “Sola Scriptura” definition is a late invention by men and is refuted by Sacred Scriptura. With or without rules of engagement; If your looking for scripture only to refute this new teaching? of which I provided for you.

IF your looking for a specific scripture to refute a New "Sola Scriptura " invention, is like asking the first century Christians to judge between automobiles which were not invented yet. So the apostles gave warnings and prophecies to the Church to be aware of the false teachers and teachings that are to come. To which you bring this new teaching that refutes “Sola Scriptura” or any other newly founded christian teaching after the apostles.

I thank you, your point is well taken about your new defined “sola scriptura”. I stand by my post, “sola scriputra” limits the power of God, and does not recognize his presence in his body on earth, from the “Sola Scriptura” which blinds men and limits man’s faith that God truly lives.

Peace

Peace.

 

[With_Questions]

Let me jump in here if I may. And, admittedly, I have only scanned my way to the end of the thread, but I have a couple of points to share.

You are allowed. At least you are posting your own thoughts.

While the Bible is the inspired word of God, it is without error, or infallible if you prefer. Man, is fallible as could be his interpretations of an infallible scripture.

With this thought, we have to look to how this infallible written word came together and lasted 1600 years to be in our hands today.

We all believe God had the power to inspire the written word, through fallible men, this includes the New Testament, which I believe this discussion is specifically referencing, since there was a canon of the Old Testament at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Ok, fallible men wrote epistles and letters, to individuals and individual Churches throughout Asia. There was not a mutual sitting of the authors of the New Testament, who sat around and decided to write Biblical “scriptures”.

OK. This is well known and not controversial.

Around 400AD, fallible men of the Church held council and defined a canon of the New Testament, as we know it today. To venture off topic for just a moment, I have to point out that the Church and the Faith existed for approximately 400 years without a complete New Testament.

I have seen some debate here on the historical details as to how the canon of Scripture came to be. The important point to me is that God used humans to accomplish His purposes.

That should not be controversial either.

Back to the council that defined the canon of the New Testament. It, the council of fallible men, had to be Holy Spirit protected, and accepted as such, to believe the written word is infallible, or else we have to question the epistles and letters chosen to be a part of the canon.

However it happened, I accept the results as correct.

Now I have read some debate on how easy or difficult what they did actually was. To me this debate sort of misses the point.

The point is that I as a Christian must give glory to God in this that God involved men in something that He was doing and made sure the men got it right.

Now, if we trust the council of men that defined the canon of the New Testament, why can’t we trust the Church these men were a part of?

Because my trust is in neither the men or the Church. My trust is in God who made sure that His purposes was accomplished.

Needful to say I am thankful to God that He did what He did to insure that the Bible in my hand is in fact His word.

There were no other Churches at that time. The Catholic Church preserved the Bible until the 1500s, when the reformation took place. The original reformers came from the Catholic Church themselves, and they took the Bible with them. There were changes made by the reformers, but all in all, the Bible remains the same with the exception of those changes that were made. Again, I have to point out, the changes were made by fallible men, outside the Church that had defined and preserved the Bible until that time.

I guess I prefer to give the glory to God in this. Man and the church are just clay in the hands of the potter.

That is the way it should be methinks.

It’s at this point we, still fallible, have to determine whose interpretations are correct. We know God is truth and truth cannot have multiple meanings. Many Churches depend on interpretations of scriptures for their doctrines. Do all those Churches have the same doctrines? Do they all agree on the interpretation?

OK

If God protected the Church that preserved the epistles and letters, and further protected the Church that defined the canon, with a continued protection of His scriptures through the Church for another 1100 years, until the reformation, who should we depend on for an interpretation so that we are all of the same mind and judgment, as taught by St. Paul.

God

Now, one more point. God inspired it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth, why didn’t God inspire it be written that the scriptures were the pillar and ground of truth if the Bible alone interpretations were also infallible?

While the Bible is without error, individual personal interpretations are not, therefore we must turn to the pillar and ground of truth to receive the infallible message from God through his written word, and that is the Church. Does this verse not explain there is an infallible source besides the Bible? That infallible source being the pillar and ground of truth.

To you the “pillar and ground” of truth implies unable to be incorrect.

To me it implies “authoritative and credible”.

I don’t think you can logically prove that “pillar and ground of truth” means “unable to be incorrect” as opposed to “authoritiative and credible”. If it is possible to prove it the other way, I think I will pass. I am getting tired.

continued

 

[With_Questions]

This thought is confirmed by Christ’s direction on how to resolve disputes.

**Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. **

If scriptures were the only infallible rule of faith and conduct, why did Christ say, and God inspire it to be written, to take your brother to the Church and not to scriptures?

Again these Scriptures can also be interpreted equally well with the church as authoritative and credible (and undivided) as opposed to unable to be incorrect.

While the verse your Church uses on it’s website confirms scriptures to be useful, it’s already been pointed out it’s not sufficient. Being insufficient makes the Bible less than the sole rule of faith and conduct.

But I agree that the Bible is insufficient. By that I mean that God designed both the Church and the Bible to function in relationship with each other. You can not split one out and say that the other is not necessary.

The issue as I see it is what exactly is that relationship. Whatever it is, I have severe doubts that the relationship is “impossible to be incorrect” on the part of the church.

I apologize if I’ve strayed from the topic somehow, or gone against the “rules” imposed upon this discussion. I just didn’t see any other way to address it, without including my complete thought on this subject.

Well you have drifted somewhat from “logically disproving Sola Scriptura” with Scripture to “Why I find what I believe to be credible.” But so has the thread as a whole for that matter. And that is ok, since I think this thread has pretty much accomplished the purpose of illustrating how difficult (if not impossible) it is to logically disprove a theological proposition with Scripture.

The best arguments (imho) are of the nature “Why I believe the way I do and why I find my beliefs to be credible” anyway.

 

[tdgesq]

t [the Bible] is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

I took this portion from your OP so as not to get sidetracked with any of the rest.
CHESTERTONRULES;4539085:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church

of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Your response to 1 Tim 3:15

And this one says that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not that it is incapable of being incorrect.

My question is: how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it is capable of teaching error.

 

[With_Questions]

Gabriel of 12;
Hello, because there are very different distinct views and belief’s what “Sola Scriptura” means, I refer you to the original “Sola Scriptura” defined by the inventer Martin Luther. Truly I tell you, this is my post, the only cut and paste were the scriptures I provided for this thread.

In summary, any “Sola Scriptura” definition is a late invention by men and is refuted by Sacred Scriptura. With or without rules of engagement; If your looking for scripture only to refute this new teaching? of which I provided for you.

IF your looking for a specific scripture to refute a New "Sola Scriptura " invention, is like asking the first century Christians to judge between automobiles which were not invented yet. So the apostles gave warnings and prophecies to the Church to be aware of the false teachers and teachings that are to come. To which you bring this new teaching that refutes “Sola Scriptura” or any other newly founded christian teaching after the apostles.

I thank you, your point is well taken about your new defined “sola scriptura”. I stand by my post, “sola scriputra” limits the power of God, and does not recognize his presence in his body on earth, from the “Sola Scriptura” which blinds men and limits man’s faith that God truly lives.

Peace

Peace.

So your argument is anything that was not explicitely taught by the apostles is false? Pardon me, but I seem to be having difficulty following your logical flow. Probably it is me being thickheaded (or tired).

How do you know this assumption is true? What is the difference between that logic and “unless it is found in the Bible it is false”?

If it was not explicitely taught by the apostles, what about the Trinity which was not formally defined until the 300s I think?

I could also mention stuff like the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception since I have no reason to believe the apostles taught those either. But I will be nice and refrain from that.

 

[With_Questions]

My question is: how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of the truth if it is capable of teaching error.

By being authoritative and credible.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible is the Word of God. We believe that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

While giving more thought to the subject, and the post from your Church, another passage came to mind that indicates an infallible truth, which can be delievered by not only fallible men, but evil men on top of that.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

The chair of Moses was the seat of authority in the Temple. Christ told the people of that time, “…whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do.” So we are to listen to the authority in the, then Temple, now Church. Christ went on to say, “…but according to their works do ye not, For they say, and do not.” This seems to indicate that they say truth, even if they don’t do as they say.

Christ did not tell them there was, or would be, a sole infallible rule of faith and conduct, other than the authority of the Church.

At this time, I wish to again bring up that which St. Paul taught.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

St. Paul calls the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. He did not call scriptures, or inspired word of God, the pillar and ground of truth. Again, we have another scripture that indicates that scriptures are not the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Again, I’ll repeat Christ’s instructions on disputes.

Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Christ tells them to take their brother to the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. He did not tell them to take their brothers to scriptures because they are the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct. This scripture also indicates there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct, and that is the Church.

How do we know the Church has such authority, or the ability of infallibility?

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

That statement has been said before by our Lord.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

That’s twice our Lord has spoken about the Church, and that’s twice our Lord granted authority of the Church by stating, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Only this time he preceded the explaining the authority by saying, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Christ did not say there would be multiple Churches.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Who would the one shepherd be?

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

How do we know the Lord would be with His Church to keep it an infallible source on earth?

**Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

He would be with “them” until the consummation of the world? Mortal men who would eventually die a death of the flesh? Men who would not be teaching them to observe all things whatever He has commanded until the consummation of the world?

Christ would not send His people, those of His flock, towards a fallible source. Especially when He knew He had the power to be with that Church until the consummation of the world.

One must consider what the Lord told the people about their interpretations of scriptures.

**Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. **

Now, did Christ tell them the scriptures were the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct? No, he knew fallible men would misinterpret. But with His living Church, that He said He would be with by the power of God, He knew there was another infallible rule of faith and conduct. Christ is infallible.

 

[With_Questions]

Hi:
I am getting very tired and mentally drained.

Arguing Christianity over the internet does this to me. I really should break this habit. I think I will go to bed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi:
I am getting very tired and mentally drained.

Arguing Christianity over the internet does this to me. I really should break this habit. I think I will go to bed.

Have a goodnight and a better tomorrow!

God Bless,

 

[tdgesq]

By being authoritative and credible.

And how does that work if it is capable of teaching heresy and errors opposed to the faith?

 

[onenow1]

By being authoritative and credible.

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world.

=onenow1, The above verses should be sufficient to disprove SS .

Peace,onenow1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Another set of thoughts on the subject of the Bible being the sole rule of faith and conduct. (Last one for tonight, I’m tired too. )

Had Christ, God, wanted to set apart scriptures as the sole rule of faith and conduct, why didn’t He write or have something scribed Himself? Surely this would have stood out much more than from men whom He taught through oral tradition. Could it have been that, through His example, He was showing us that oral tradition could be an infallible rule of faith and conduct, protected by the Holy Spirit?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

What does scriptures, the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct as per your Church, tell us about tradition?

**1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Th 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my word shall not pass away.

2Ti 1:13 Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also.

2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand.
1Co 15:2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. **

Why is it oral tradition was considered an infallible rule of faith in the times of our Lord and the Apostles, but it cannot be considered so today?

Oral tradition is confirmed by St. Paul, who was not an eyewitness of our Lord’s death and resurrection. He learned somethings, written about infallibly, through oral tradtion.

**Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive. **

How did St. Paul know our Lord said, “It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive,” it wasn’t written about anywhere else in scriptures.

The seat of Moses scripture, where is the seat of Moses written about anywhere else in the Bible, more specifically in the Old Testament? It’s not, but everyone knew what He was speaking about.

Do you remember St. Paul telling about the rock that following the Israelites through the desert?

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

Where else is that rock that followed them talked about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament? It’s not.

Everyone knows the story of the magicians that worked for Pharoah. Remember, they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses’ staff/snake ate them both! But where are their names written about in the Old Testament? They’re not! But, St. Paul knew their names.

**2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. **

If the authors of the New Testament could write of things, infallibly, that they learned from oral tradition, then why can’t oral traditions be infallible as well? Doesn’t the power of God have the ability to maintain infallibility through other means? I think so.

(to be continued)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(continued)

Here are a few more scriptures, that I think indicates the Church to also be infallible.

**Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

1Jn 2:27 And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you: but as his unction teacheth you of all things and is truth and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

Act 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: **

Last I offer you a story of the Ethipoian who read Isaiah, scriptures, but did not understand them until they were orally explained to him. Once the gospel had been spoken to him, he believed.

**Act 8:27 And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.
Act 8:28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
Act 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Act 8:31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
Act 8:33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
Act 8:34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip: and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.
Act 8:40 But Philip was found in Azotus: and passing through, he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea. **

I believe it was you that thanked someone for making you think, I too enjoy being made to think and want to thank you for your thought provoking post. I also, thank you for making me do my homework, in reference to reading scriptures and reflecting.

Now, I’ve used enough thoughts for one day and will go to bed myself. I look forward to your thoughts in response to what I’ve posted.

:yawn:

God Bless,

 

[ralphinal]

Good questions.

God provides a lot of resources to the believer. We have the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We have the council and teaching of the church, present day and historical. We have the written Word of God. We have His promises on our behalf. I could probably list more given more thought.

But it is not one resource. It is all of the resources of God in proper relationship to each other.

Does all of this guarantee we will never err. No. But if we err, the fault is not God’s and a lack of Him providing the necessary resources.

So if all that is needed to have sola scriptura, do you really have sola scriptura?

 

[With_Questions]

Hi:
First of all I want to thank you for putting thought and intelligence in your response and for not lapsing into condescension.

While giving more thought to the subject, and the post from your Church, another passage came to mind that indicates an infallible truth, which can be delievered by not only fallible men, but evil men on top of that.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

I don’t see anything about being incapable of teaching error.

Just because Jesus tells the multitude to obey the scribes and Pharisees, it does not necessarily mean they are incapable of teaching error.

The Scriptures also tell us to obey our earthly governments. They are not incapable of being incorrect either.

The chair of Moses was the seat of authority in the Temple. Christ told the people of that time, “…whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do.” So we are to listen to the authority in the, then Temple, now Church. Christ went on to say, “…but according to their works do ye not, For they say, and do not.” This seems to indicate that they say truth, even if they don’t do as they say.

Christ did not tell them there was, or would be, a sole infallible rule of faith and conduct, other than the authority of the Church.

Not necessarily. He could have been telling them to obey simply because they sat in authority in the chair of Moses.

At this time, I wish to again bring up that which St. Paul taught.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

St. Paul calls the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. He did not call scriptures, or inspired word of God, the pillar and ground of truth. Again, we have another scripture that indicates that scriptures are not the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct.

But again somehow, somewhere you have to justify making the leap from “pillar and ground of the truth” to “incapable of teaching error in matter of faith and morals”. If you were to ask 100 sixth graders whether those two phrases have equivalent meaning, I doubt whether even one would say that they are.

This leap has to be provable if you want to disprove Sola Scriptura via the scriptures. Otherwise I have a disconnect.

Again, I’ll repeat Christ’s instructions on disputes.

Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Christ tells them to take their brother to the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. He did not tell them to take their brothers to scriptures because they are the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct. This scripture also indicates there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct, and that is the Church.

Again, just because Christ tells us to take disputes to the church, it does necessarily follow that the church is incapable of being incorrect.

Jesus does supply the resource of the church to the body of Christ. That truth should not be in dispute.

continued

 

[With_Questions]

How do we know the Church has such authority, or the ability of infallibility?

Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

That statement has been said before by our Lord.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

That’s twice our Lord has spoken about the Church, and that’s twice our Lord granted authority of the Church by stating, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” Only this time he preceded the explaining the authority by saying, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

Again, somehow you have to prove the leap “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is the same as “incapable of teaching errors in matter of faith and morals”

You are not surprising me any any of these Scriptures. I have heard them all before.

Now it is one thing to sit down and discuss the relative merits of different interpretations of Scriptures. And we can go round and round with the relative merits of my interpretation versus yours. And at the end of the day, we will have an interesting discussion but nobody’s mind will be particularly changed (now there is the remote possibility that you might say something altogether new that I haven’t heard before that causes me to think…but I doubt it).

But it is another thing to disprove my interpretation. For it to be disproved Scripturally it has to be unreconcilable with the Bible being the inerrant Word of God.:

Christ did not say there would be multiple Churches.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Who would the one shepherd be?

Jesus. Your point being

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

OK I still don’t see the point yet

How do we know the Lord would be with His Church to keep it an infallible source on earth?

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

He would be with “them” until the consummation of the world? Mortal men who would eventually die a death of the flesh? Men who would not be teaching them to observe all things whatever He has commanded until the consummation of the world?

I still don’t see the point

Christ would not send His people, those of His flock, towards a fallible source. Especially when He knew He had the power to be with that Church until the consummation of the world.

Why wouldn’t He? I would not presume to know what Christ would and would not do.

Anyway, I don’t think you can not prove that just because Jesus teaches about the resource of the Church to the apostles that the resource is incapable of being incorrect.

One must consider what the Lord told the people about their interpretations of scriptures.

**Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. **

Now, did Christ tell them the scriptures were the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct? No, he knew fallible men would misinterpret. But with His living Church, that He said He would be with by the power of God, He knew there was another infallible rule of faith and conduct. Christ is infallible.

Again, I see nothing about “incapable of being incorrect” in any of these Scriptures.

The thing with all of this we are getting into the realm of relative merits of different interpretations. This tends to get very subjective very quickly.

Believe me, I am a veteran of many eternal security debates in times past. Because of these debates, I have come to greatly dislike arguing about the Written Word of God. They are much too tiring for my feeble mind.

So I will let your interpretation pass even though I do not necessarily agree with it. Who knows, maybe I will read something in the future that convinces me. But I doubt it.

But just because you provide a different interpretation of Scripture than I see it, it does not necessarily follow that your interpretation logically proves mine wrong. And that is the major point of this thread.

But again, thank you very much for putting some thought and intelligence in your responses and for not lapsing into condescension. That is appreciated.

 

[With_Questions]

And how does that work if it is capable of teaching heresy and errors opposed to the faith?

How does being authoritative and credible work.

Well first of all the church has to be in right standing before God.

If the Church is off doing its own thing (like burning anabaptists) I have absolutely no reason to believe that God will provide any protection against the church being incorrect (like hurling anathemas upon the Protestants).

Second of all the Church has to be diligently studying the Scriptures on fear that it might be wrong, not trusting in its own power and charism of “being incapable of being incorrect”.

Third of all the Church should be humble and listening to everyone, including maybe those who disagree. Maybe the Church will just change its mind if it approaches any issue with humility.

Fourth of all the Church should make sure it is joining God in something He is doing, and not trying to adjucate a matter which God does not intend to reveal to the people of God.

Just then, maybe if God so wills, God will be gracious and move upon His church and insure that the Church “gets it right”. He certainly has done this in the past.

But this is far different from presuming it is"incapable of being incorrect whenever".

 

[With_Questions]

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world.

=onenow1, The above verses should be sufficient to disprove SS .

Peace,onenow1

How.

 

[With_Questions]

I am truncating some of this to fit in 6000 chars

Had Christ, God, wanted to set apart scriptures as the sole rule of faith and conduct, why didn’t He write or have something scribed Himself? Surely this would have stood out much more than from men whom He taught through oral tradition. Could it have been that, through His example, He was showing us that oral tradition could be an infallible rule of faith and conduct, protected by the Holy Spirit?

I personally find questions of why didn’t God do it this way or another way to be highly speculative. If I were God, certainly I would have done things much differently.

I am not God.

What does scriptures, the sole infallible rule of faith and conduct as per your Church, tell us about tradition

Why is it oral tradition was considered an infallible rule of faith in the times of our Lord and the Apostles, but it cannot be considered so today?

First of all, to be technical it is oral apostolic tradition, not just oral tradition.

Second of all, I see nothing in these Scriptures about the apostles assuming they are incapable of being incorrect. They might just be telling the church to heed what they say because they know they are authoritative and credible and they know that they are in a right relationship with God.

I know this might seem like a fine distinction, but to me it is very important.

Oral tradition is confirmed by St. Paul, who was not an eyewitness of our Lord’s death and resurrection. He learned somethings, written about infallibly, through oral tradtion.

**Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive. **

How did St. Paul know our Lord said, “It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive,” it wasn’t written about anywhere else in scriptures.

Sure, probably at some time St. Peter or somebody sat down with Paul and taught him what they learned from Christ while they were with them.

I don’t know if the right word for this is oral tradition, but whatever.

But nobody is denying that the spoken words of the apostles carried a great, great, big amount of weight in the life of the apostolic church.
The seat of Moses scripture, where is the seat of Moses written about anywhere else in the Bible, more specifically in the Old Testament? It’s not, but everyone knew what He was speaking about.

Do you remember St. Paul telling about the rock that following the Israelites through the desert?

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

Where else is that rock that followed them talked about anywhere else in scriptures, including the Old Testament? It’s not.

Everyone knows the story of the magicians that worked for Pharoah. Remember, they turned their staffs into snakes and Moses’ staff/snake ate them both! But where are their names written about in the Old Testament? They’re not! But, St. Paul knew their names.

**2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. **

I think the fact that the rock followed the Israelites in the desert might be inferred from the original account. I would have to read it again though to verify.

But you are right on Jannes and Mambres. So apparantly there are some details in the Bible that the authors received from sources other than the Bible.

OK, it doesn’t mean these sources are incapable of being incorrect. Obviously these sources were right in these instances (otherwise it would not be in the Bible). But that is not the same as being incapable of being incorrect.

It is the same distinction as me getting 100 on a math test and me being incapable of scoring anything less than 100 on a math test. The first is not repeatable while the second is.

If the authors of the New Testament could write of things, infallibly, that they learned from oral tradition, then why can’t oral traditions be infallible as well? Doesn’t the power of God have the ability to maintain infallibility through other means? I think so.

(to be continued)

Questions of the nature, “why can’t” and “couldn’t God” to me seem highly speculative. God being God and all that has the unique ability of doing just about anything He pleases. So to me the issue is not what God could or could not do, but what He actually chooses to do.

 

[With_Questions]

I am going to be very short on time today and will not have the time to address every post.

However, this is a very good question.

So if all that is needed to have sola scriptura, do you really have sola scriptura?

First of all you have to remember “Sola Scriptura” is just a two word title without any verb. It can be defined any way you want.

So here are the issues:
(1) Is my Sola Scriptura definition compatible with any of those that are out there.

I think so. If I were to read “The Face Of Sola Scriptura” I think it would be. From what I have read, the one sentence statement of faith is derived from it.

(2) Is my Sola Scriptura definition compatible with all of those that are out there.

I don’t think so. Wikipedia defines Sola Scriptura in a much more narrow sense. I think this definition is what you might call the “Classic Protestant” sense.

I am not a “Classic Protestant”

(3) Is Sola Scriptura the best title

I am not convinced of that. If one of the traits of a good title is that it is not easy to misinterpret, then it is not.

I personally think Prima Scriptura is a better title.

If the book had been titled “The Face of Prima Scriptura”, then I do not think you all would have a cow over it.