Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[JohnnyReb]

Sacred Tradition IS the Power of God. It is the Living Word, present in the Chruch.

That may or may not be true. My point should be taken in the its context, namely that I was responding to the idea that SS cannot be true because Christ did not command anybody to write anything down.

By that logic, we cannot teach that homosexuality is a sin or abortion or birth control because Christ never explicitly tells anyone they are forbidden. We get these other truths from scripture and the broader context of Christian tradition for the past 2000 years.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Do you think there is any chance that, if the Church says their beliefs are Catholic in their faith, then it might be true?

Maybe.

However, I will add that, when I first started reading Scripture (after I left Catholicism) I did not believe it for a long time. I believed they were diametrically opposed to one another. This attitude came from a lack of catechesis, and the fact that I fell among Baptists who were staunchly anti-Catholic at the time.

Thats a shame. I do not nor ever believed scripture was “opposed” to Catholicism. Failed to support some teachings, maybe, but totally opposed. Nah.

No, all authority in the Church comes from Christ. What Christ gave to the Church is preserved through Tradition and Scripture - equal strands of the same “once for all” divine deposit of faith.

I always understood the Catholic model for this as authority coming from

1. God to 2) Christ to 3) The Church/Apostles to 4) Scripture and Tradition. A linear progression.

And for Protestantism

1. God to 2) Christ to 3) His Apostles to 4) Scripture-because it records the teachings of the Apostles to 5) the Church

Notice is one subtle difference? Its amazing how that has causes such a rift in Christianity.

Even in regards to the OP, the poster is going to scripture to affirm that scripture alone is not the rule of faith, that the church discerns and declares the truth in its own authority. His approach to refuting sola scripture is to go to scripture first in this case. Prima scriptura, which is similar to the Anglican/Wesleyan/Methodist approach to faith.

There is a complex procedure and practice for accountability. It has been used in the Church from the beginning, as we can see in the book of Acts when there were disagreements and people teaching error (like Gentiles had to be circumcised). The Church uses the procedure set by Christ in scripture, where disputes are taken directly to the brother, then if he will not listen, two or three go with them, and if he will still not listen, they go to the Church (apostolic authority).

What would you do if your priest ever taught error (God Forbid) on the level of outright heresy?

Yes, as we all know, people can, and have “deduced” the opposite from Scripture.

That they have, but they also have interpreted scripture outside of the historic Christian faith, which for me comes down to the ancient words of the Nicene Creed. When I analyze the Creed, I find that the only real disagreement that I may have with the Catholics amounts to how we understand “one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”

Likewise, this is where referring to Church history does help.

It is the same with the Marian doctrines, and the nature of Christ. ** They did not just start believing Jesus had two natures at the Council of Nicea**

Of course not.

I have been offline for the last 5 days, but I will find your message and get back to you. You remain in my prayers for your spiritual discernment. Where God guides, he provides.

Thanks I appreciate it. I know that we all have lives outside of CAF. Classes just started back for me so I have to cut the online time down or the grades will suffer.

 

[Dokimas]

That your non-answers and refusals to provide evidence speak VOLUMES about Church authority and the inefficiency of Scripture alone to decide matters of the Church.

You have convinced yourself you are correct. Far be it from me to try to change you mind with is already made. Have a nice life.

 

[Nicea325]

You have convinced yourself you are correct. Far be it from me to try to change you mind with is already made. Have a nice life.

Doki…be nice my friend. How is the spiritual journey coming along?

 

[Dokimas]

Doki…be nice my friend. How is the spiritual journey coming along?

Thank you for reminding me not to be an ‘eye for eye’ person. It’s so hard for me to overlook some things. I understand that’s NOT Christlike. It bothers me when I’m not being loving. In light of this confession, maybe, at best, I’ve stalled in my spiritual journey.

God bless you.

 

[elvisman]

That may or may not be true. My point should be taken in the its context, namely that I was responding to the idea that SS cannot be true because Christ did not command anybody to write anything down.

By that logic, we cannot teach that homosexuality is a sin or abortion or birth control because Christ never explicitly tells anyone they are forbidden. We get these other truths from scripture and the broader context of Christian tradition for the past 2000 years.

I think that this is a perfect example of why Sola Sctptura is not teneble.
You’re right - Jesus doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality - but Paul does (Rom. 1:27, 1 Tim. 1:10).
Although he said it implicitly, Jesus didn’t explicitly say that Baptism saves you - but Peter does (1 Pet. 3:21).
NONE of them spoke about may things that may be sins in the 21st century - like downloading music or other cyber or technically blurred areas.

ALL truth is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Sola Scriptura cannot be the final authority on faith and morals. Jesus left that authority to the Church because he knew that not everything would be explicitly taught in Scripture. He knew that there would come a time when things might get blurred, so he guaranteed the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth.**

 

[JohnnyReb]

I think that this is a perfect example of why Sola Sctptura is not teneble.
You’re right - Jesus doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality - but Paul does (Rom. 1:27, 1 Tim. 1:10).
Although he said it implicitly, Jesus didn’t explicitly say that Baptism saves you - but Peter does (1 Pet. 3:21).
NONE of them spoke about may things that may be sins in the 21st century - like downloading music or other cyber or technically blurred areas.

ALL truth is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Sola Scriptura cannot be the final authority on faith and morals. Jesus left that authority to the Church because he* knew* that not everything would be explicitly taught in Scripture. He knew that there would come a time when things might get blurred, so he guaranteed the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth.

I do agree that is a good point. You do hit on a very sticky issue. The answer I have always gotten, say in response to the example of downloading music, is that we as Christians must obey the laws of the Land (Romans 13:1) unless they explicitly force us to go against the will of God, since we must obey God over man in those situations. It would therefore be a sin to download music if it is illegal to do so.

 

[elvisman]

I do agree that is a good point. You do hit on a very sticky issue. The answer I have always gotten, say in response to the example of downloading music, is that we as Christians must obey the laws of the Land (Romans 13:1) unless they explicitly force us to go against the will of God, since we must obey God over man in those situations. It would therefore be a sin to download music if it is illegal to do so.

Agreed. I only brought that up because there are many blurred lines when it comes to sin. For a while - it wasn’t illegal to download anything because there was no law against it. Was it a sin then? Was it addressed in Scripture? * That’s the point I was making.*

**Is it illegal to break into somebody’s house for shelter if you are being chased by a maniacal killer? This isn’**t addressed in Scripture either . . .

 

[Dokimas]

I think that this is a perfect example of why Sola Sctptura is not teneble.
You’re right - Jesus doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality - but Paul does (Rom. 1:27, 1 Tim. 1:10).
Although he said it implicitly, Jesus didn’t explicitly say that Baptism saves you - but Peter does (1 Pet. 3:21).
NONE of them spoke about may things that may be sins in the 21st century - like downloading music or other cyber or technically blurred areas.

ALL truth is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, ergo, Sola Scriptura cannot be the final authority on faith and morals. Jesus left that authority to the Church because he* knew* that not everything would be explicitly taught in Scripture. He knew that there would come a time when things might get blurred, so he guaranteed the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth.

If the Bible can be proven to be incorrect in any area, would that diminish it’s authority?

If the church is not 100% correct on all things, could it be the final authority?

IMO, final authority is for that which is 100% accurate 100% of the time. It doesn’t have to comment on 100% of the possible topics.

 

[Dokimas]

The answer I have always gotten, say in response to the example of downloading music, is that we as Christians must obey the laws of the Land (Romans 13:1) unless they explicitly force us to go against the will of God, since we must obey God over man in those situations. It would therefore be a sin to download music if it is illegal to do so.

Even if Romans 13:1 did not exist, wouldn’t it be wrong because it’s stealing?

 

[elvisman]

If the Bible can be proven to be incorrect in any area, would that diminish it’s authority?

If the church is not 100% correct on all things, could it be the final authority?

IMO, final authority is for that which is 100% accurate 100% of the time. It doesn’t have to comment on 100% of the possible topics.

**That *might *be true, except for ONE thing, Doki - the Bible itself calls the CHURCH the final Authority and nowhere does it say that about itself.

Sola Scriptura is false because it’s a self-refuting doctrine.

As for proving the Bible wrong - that’s precisely what the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations have tried to do with it over the years. If EVERY denomination is right, then the Bible is wrong. They ALL say they’re right, according to the Bible.
Lets see where the Bible went wrong with the following:
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “Once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
**Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not. **
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

---

Pick a flavor, Doki. Just pick the right one . . .

 

[elvisman]

Even if Romans 13:1 did not exist, wouldn’t it be wrong because it’s stealing?

NOPE - and here’s why.
Downloading music wasn’t always considered stealing. The argument was that we had to follow the law of the land.

 

[JohnnyReb]

That might be true, except for ONE thing, Doki - the Bible itself calls the CHURCH the final Authority and nowhere does it say that about itself.

Sola Scriptura is false because it’s a self-refuting doctrine.

As for proving the Bible wrong - that’s precisely what the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations have tried to do with it over the years. If EVERY denomination is right, then the Bible is wrong. They ALL say they’re right, according to the Bible.
Lets see where the Bible went wrong with the following:
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “Once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

Pick a flavor, Doki. Just pick the right one . . .

To me, this is a very compelling argument against the praxis of SS, the very one that I have used in the past. Certainly the Roman approach creates a sense of peace for some who have trouble dealing with disputes of this nature.

I have seen Calvinists call Arminians heretics over such disagreements. Each brand of Christianity seems to make their pet doctrines the most important ones for some reason. Pentecostals make healing and speaking the tongues very important. Calvinists defend the 5 points, Baptists defend believers baptism with all their might, and eternal security comes in a close second.

David Currie, a Catholic convert points out what he calls the five levels of truth in Catholicism, the idea of the Deposit of Faith, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline and Devotion. I assume that we are familiar with what these mean, so no need to explain there further. The only two the Catholics must be united on without any disagreement are Deposit and Dogma. The rest there is room for dispute. Even on Doctrine.

Soul Sleep, Total Depravity, OSAS, the Rapture, Predestination would all fall under the category of Doctrine for Protestants (some would rabidly defende them as if they are part of the Gospel, but they are not). They amount to interpretations of what the Bible teaches. It teaches that we are predestined for salvation in Christ. Calvinism is an interpretation of what that means, as is Arminianism. One is probably more true than the other, but there is room for disagreement in the body of Christ about these things.

The Trinity and Abortion, Homosexuality and ABC are different. The last three relate to morality of living. Abortion and Homosexuality are clearly taught against in the Bible, even if others will misuse the pages of scripture to say otherwise. Failure to submit to its teaching does not mean its authority is invalidated. I mean Catholics say we Protestants fail to submit to the authority of tradition and what scripture witnesses about the church, but that does not make those things any less true in the eyes of Catholics, does it?

 

[elvisman]

To me, this is a very compelling argument against the praxis of SS, the very one that I have used in the past. Certainly the Roman approach creates a sense of peace for some who have trouble dealing with disputes of this nature.

I have seen Calvinists call Arminians heretics over such disagreements. Each brand of Christianity seems to make their pet doctrines the most important ones for some reason. Pentecostals make healing and speaking the tongues very important. Calvinists defend the 5 points, Baptists defend believers baptism with all their might, and eternal security comes in a close second.

David Currie, a Catholic convert points out what he calls the five levels of truth in Catholicism, the idea of the Deposit of Faith, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline and Devotion. I assume that we are familiar with what these mean, so no need to explain there further. The only two the Catholics must be united on without any disagreement are Deposit and Dogma. The rest there is room for dispute. Even on Doctrine.

Soul Sleep, Total Depravity, OSAS, the Rapture, Predestination would all fall under the category of Doctrine for Protestants (some would rabidly defende them as if they are part of the Gospel, but they are not). They amount to interpretations of what the Bible teaches. It teaches that we are predestined for salvation in Christ. Calvinism is an interpretation of what that means, as is Arminianism. One is probably more true than the other, but there is room for disagreement in the body of Christ about these things.

The Trinity and Abortion, Homosexuality and ABC are different. The last three relate to morality of living. Abortion and Homosexuality are clearly taught against in the Bible, even if others will misuse the pages of scripture to say otherwise. Failure to submit to its teaching does not mean its authority is invalidated. I mean Catholics say we Protestants fail to submit to the authority of tradition and what scripture witnesses about the church, but that does not make those things any less true in the eyes of Catholics, does it?

I’m not sure I understand the question.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for reminding me not to be an ‘eye for eye’ person. It’s so hard for me to overlook some things. I understand that’s NOT Christlike. It bothers me when I’m not being loving. In light of this confession, maybe, at best, I’ve stalled in my spiritual journey.

God bless you.

Don’t forget to bless your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you or despitefully use you. Praying for others may help them, but it certainly will help us.

 

[guanophore]

David Currie, a Catholic convert points out what he calls the five levels of truth in Catholicism, the idea of the Deposit of Faith, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline and Devotion. I assume that we are familiar with what these mean, so no need to explain there further. The only two the Catholics must be united on without any disagreement are Deposit and Dogma. The rest there is room for dispute. Even on Doctrine.

Yes, there are many levels of truth, but I don’t think Doctrine leaves room for dispute. The doctrine of the faith is part of Deposit of Faith - The Teaching of the Apostles.

 

[Dokimas]

**That *might ***be true, except for ONE thing, Doki - the Bible *itself *calls the CHURCH the final Authority and nowhere does it say that about itself.

Sola Scriptura is false because it’s a self-refuting doctrine.

As for proving the Bible wrong - that’s precisely what the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations have tried to do with it over the years. If EVERY denomination is right, then the Bible is wrong. They ALL say they’re right, according to the Bible.
Lets see where the Bible went wrong with the following:
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “Once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

---

Pick a flavor, Doki. Just pick the right one . . .

The main part of your post is has no meaning to me with respect to SS. Just because there’s different understandings on a single topic doesn’t prove anything, IMO.

Interesting you have such a comment about SS as to say it is self-refuting. If I were so bold about some of the things you believe I’d be called anti-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. BTW, I hope I don’t use your tactics because they seem to violate Romans 14:1ff.

The Bible IS NOT wrong. It’s not wrong because of the Holy Spirit. I have no clue what you mean by your comment about protestants trying to prove the Bible being wrong. I’m surely not a protestant then. (I don’t consider myself a protestant anyway; I’m not protesting anything.)

Could you point me to the verse that say that the CC is the final authority?

 

[Dokimas]

Don’t forget to bless your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you or despitefully use you. Praying for others may help them, but it certainly will help us.

A very good word that I need to listen and harken to. Thank you very much for that reminder. Keep reminding me. God bless you.

 

[elvisman]

The main part of your post is has no meaning to me with respect to SS. Just because there’s different understandings on a single topic doesn’t prove anything, IMO.

Interesting you have such a comment about SS as to say it is self-refuting. If I were so bold about some of the things you believe I’d be called anti-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. BTW, I hope I don’t use your tactics because they seem to violate Romans 14:1ff.

The Bible IS NOT wrong. It’s not wrong because of the Holy Spirit. I have no clue what you mean by your comment about protestants trying to prove the Bible being wrong. I’m surely not a protestant then. (I don’t consider myself a protestant anyway; I’m not protesting anything.)

Could you point me to the verse that say that the CC is the final authority?

**Sure: Matt. 18:15-18 **

As for Protestants and Sola Scriptura - it’s wrong because they CAN’T all be right in regards to the major doctrinal differences they all have. I listed a few of them and every one of them is an essential belief.**

They ALL claim to have gleaned their understanding from the bible, yet their bellief systems are as different as night and day? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is confusing them all?
Are they all wrong?
Are they all correct?

 

[Dokimas]

**Sure: Matt. 18:15-18 **

As for Protestants and Sola Scriptura - it’s wrong because they CAN’T** all be right in regards to the major doctrinal differences they all have. I listed a few of them and every one of them is an essential belief.

**They ALL **claim to have gleaned their understanding from the bible, yet their bellief systems are as different as night and day? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is confusing them all?
Are they all wrong?
Are they all correct?

Matthew 18:
15 ¶ "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ {#De 19:15}
17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Having your presupposition, I see how you think you have the correct understanding. However, there’s NO evidence that this verse is for the CC and the CC only.

Just once it would be nice for you to admit that the major doctrines of all non-catholic Christian (not just by name, that is) have the same core doctrines as you do.