Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[JohnnyReb]

Hey Johnny…

Absolutely! Paul and Barnabas deferred to the church, and the HS guided the church in the right direction, but I am told by my sola scriptura friends that we are to defer to scripture alone for edification and doctrinal guidance, as opposed to the church, such as the catholic church, etc.

Hello Joe. See my response to Elvis.

Agreed! As a church (leadership) - they sought the guidance of the HS; that makes sense to me. However, if scripture alone (sola scriptura) - was the Christians sole rule of faith, then, as it is today for SS advocates, then why didn’t Paul and Barnabas, and the rest of the leaders at the church in Antioch, simply search the scriptures for the answer, as the Bereans did, and as sola scriptura advocates do today?

I suppose my point is: I don’t believe there is evidence that the 1st century Christians embraced sola scriptura, for the simple fact that the holy bible did not exist. If that is true, then sola scriptura must be a tradition that does not have its origin in Jesus or His apostles; would that be a fair assessment?

Remember, all SS states is that everything that is necessary for salvation for us today is in the scriptures. It also states that anytime the Church teaches, its teaching must conform to the word of God. Even the CC teaches and agrees to this (the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant-in the Catechism of the Catholic church). The crux of the matter is that the CC also accepts sacred tradition as God’s word, which is rejected by Protestants.

There is evidence that early Christian leaders believed that their teaching was subject to harmony with the scriptures and subject to being evaluated by them.

 

[guanophore]

Remember, all SS states is that everything that is necessary for salvation for us today is in the scriptures.

Where do you find this in the Bible?

 It also states that anytime the Church teaches, its teaching must conform to the word of God.

Yes, but the problem is that people measure things against their perceptions of what is written, and everyone perceives it differently.

. The crux of the matter is that the CC also accepts sacred tradition as God’s word, which is rejected by Protestants.

Actually, they have their own traditions. They just reject the Catholic ones, for the most part. They accept some Catholic Sacred Traditions, curiously. Like worshipping on Sunday, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, but though they all came from the same place, they reject the rest.

There is evidence that early Christian leaders believed that their teaching was subject to harmony with the scriptures and subject to being evaluated by them.

Yes, I think the church has always taken the position that God does not reveal anything contrary to what He has already revealed.

 

[elvisman]

While the Bereans believed a truth that was not there, they believed a truth that did not contradict what was there either. From the Protestant/non Catholic perspective, comparing the two situations is comparing apples to oranges. Prior to the completion and solidification of the canon, God was still revealing scriptures and the deposit of faith to the Church. Afterwards, in our times, SS advocates believe that God has revealed all that is necessary to believe for salvation.

Not at all. For Sola Scriptura to be our sole Authority, you would have to negate the possiblity of salvation of just about everybody in the first 300 years of the Church. Where do the Scriptures teach that ALL that is needed for salvation is found in the Scriptures??

Remember - different communities had** this**** letter or that one but nobody had ratified the canon of Scripture until the Synod of Rome in the 4th century. All that is necessary for salvation is not in each individual letter. It was the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) who decided the matter of what would be ratified - NOT the other way around.**

**To say that comparing what the Bereans did is apples and oranges is simply a cop-out. Searching the Scriptures is a good and profitable thing to do when gleaning truth - just as the Bereans did. It is NOT however the final court of arbitration for settling matters within the Church as prescribed by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 20:21-23). He left the sole authority on earth to the Church - not to a book that hadn’t even been written yet. **

Who** were the Bereans supposed to go to if they were to fully understand if Jesus was the Messiah? To the Jewish leaders who put him to death? To this new Church of strange preachers that were traveling along the countryside and speaking in town squares? They went to the Scriptures because it was all they had to reference.**
Remember, Berea was a Greek city with Greeks and Jews alike. **

Lastly, Jesus told the Apostles that whatever they ratified as a Church on earth would be ratified in heaven. That is some pretty heavy permission - permission that is not ascribed to the Scriptures, but only to the Church. Paul and Barnabas knew this and it is PRECISELY why they went to the Church to find the solution for what the Judaizers were telling people. They DIDN’T go to the Scriptures because the answer wasn’t explicitly there. The answer came from the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

 

[JohnnyReb]

Where do you find this in the Bible?

2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6 directly teach it, and these references show Apostolic use of the prinipal. SS is not a doctrine, but a praxis.

And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. (Acts 17:11-12)

“Apollos powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:28)

Yes, but the problem is that people measure things against their perceptions of what is written, and everyone perceives it differently.

Yes, but who read the Bible are basically literate. We all bring our biases into it, whether we are rich, poor, westerners or from the developing world, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Differences in perception do not obsure our ability to understand the Gospel.

Actually, they have their own traditions. They just reject the Catholic ones, for the most part. They accept some Catholic Sacred Traditions, curiously. Like worshipping on Sunday, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, but though they all came from the same place, they reject the rest.

Yes, some SS (like myself) do find tradition useful, but we never use it alone to establish a doctrine.

Yes, I think the church has always taken the position that God does not reveal anything contrary to what He has already revealed.

I agree. The issue is that each side disagrees with the other in regards to some of those doctrines. The issue with Catholicism is that once a dogma is declared, especially if it is rooted in the idea of sacred tradition, then scripture MUST be interpreted in light of that tradition to avoid contradiction.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Not at all. For Sola Scriptura to be our sole Authority, you would have to negate the possiblity of salvation of just about everybody in the first 300 years of the Church. Where do the Scriptures teach that ALL that is needed for salvation is found in the Scriptures??

See response above.

Remember - different communities had this letter or that one but nobody had ratified the canon of Scripture until the Synod of Rome in the 4th century. All that is necessary for salvation is not in each individual letter. It was the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) who decided the matter of what would be ratified - NOT the other way around.

I don’t disagree, but the church did not decided on their own authority. They discerned and where guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul urged the sharing of letters (Colossians 4:16). Even though the letter to the Laodiceans is not scripture, it contained useful information for the Colossians.

To say that comparing what the Bereans did is apples and oranges is simply a cop-out.

How so, just because an answer refutes what you say and it upsets you doesn’t make it a cop out.

Searching the Scriptures is a good and profitable thing to do when gleaning truth - just as the Bereans did. It is NOT however the final court of arbitration for settling matters within the Church as prescribed by Jesus (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 20:21-23). He left the sole authority on earth to the Church - not to a book that hadn’t even been written yet.

Actually he gave that authority to the Apostles. Not to the whole church or the Catholic Church.

Who were the Bereans supposed to go to if they were to fully understand if Jesus was the Messiah? To the Jewish leaders who put him to death? To this new Church of strange preachers that were traveling along the countryside and speaking in town squares? They went to the Scriptures because it was all they had to reference.
Remember, Berea was a Greek city with Greeks and Jews alike.

Jesus points out that the scriptures** testify about him,** and the failure of the Jewish leaders to see this was an indicator that they did not have eternal life.(John 5:39). The Bereans could see that.

Lastly, Jesus told the Apostles that whatever they ratified as a Church on earth would be ratified in heaven. That is some pretty heavy permission - permission that is not ascribed to the Scriptures, but only to the Church.

So they could ratify something that contradicts the scriptures then an its ok. Of course not. Even your church teaches that it could not do that. “The Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant…”

Paul and Barnabas knew this and it is PRECISELY why they went to the Church to find the solution for what the Judaizers were telling people. They DIDN’T go to the Scriptures because the answer wasn’t explicitly there. The answer came from the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

And the Holy Spirit is the one who guided the church in this fashion. The church did not decide for itself on its own authority what the answer to this question was. These teachings were later put into written form, this is address extensively in the letter to the Galatians.

 

[guanophore]

2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6 directly teach it, and these references show Apostolic use of the prinipal. SS is not a doctrine, but a praxis.

No, they don’t. But I do recognize that this is a common misunderstanding.

And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2)

Giving the Scriptures their proper place in teaching and training is what is modeled by the Apostles. SS is not it.

 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, **for they received the word with great eagerness**,examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. (Acts 17:11-12)

Indeed, we should examine the scriptures daily. What is different with modern evangelicals, though is that what made the Bereans “more noble” is that they received the Apostolic teaching with great eagerness. Nowadays, many believe that Apostolic instruction is not available, so they search and glean the scriptures with fervency, being separated from the Gospel that Paul preached.

 "Apollos powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating **by the Scriptures** that Jesus was the Christ." (Acts 18:28)

Did you think that Catholics do not value the Scriptures for these functions, just because we don’t assign functions to them that are inappropriate (SS)?

 Yes, but who read the Bible are basically literate. We all bring our biases into it, whether we are rich, poor, westerners or from the developing world, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Differences in perception do not obsure our ability to understand the Gospel.

You are quite right that we do bring our biases to whatever we read, and these perceptions most certainly DO affect our ability to understand the Gospel. That is why so many horrible actions have been justified by Scripture. People distort it. It is the nature of humanity.

I agree. The issue is that each side disagrees with the other in regards to some of those doctrines. The issue with Catholicism is that once a dogma is declared, especially if it is rooted in the idea of sacred tradition, then scripture MUST be interpreted in light of that tradition to avoid contradiction.

Not just after, but before also. One of the main functions of sacred tradition is to provide us with the divine perspective on the Scriptures. We all read it with biases. Catholics choose the Apostolic Tradition as the bias. We read it according to the faith that was passed down to us.

You are also right that there can be no contradiction between what is written and what was passed down through Tradition. Since they are both the Word of God, they are from the same Source, and therefore, must be in harmony.

 

[JohnnyReb]

No, they don’t. But I do recognize that this is a common misunderstanding.

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but they teach what they do regardless if you say they do or not.

Giving the Scriptures their proper place in teaching and training is what is modeled by the Apostles. SS is not it.

They followed the praxis of SS teaching from the scriptures. Its right there in the text that they taught from the scriptures and reasoned from them. They didn’t appeal to their own authority.

Indeed, we should examine the scriptures daily. What is different with modern evangelicals, though is that what made the Bereans “more noble” is that they received the Apostolic teaching with great eagerness. Nowadays, many believe that Apostolic instruction is not available, so they search and glean the scriptures with fervency, being separated from the Gospel that Paul preached.

As we all should study them. They believed the teaching because the scriptures testify about Jesus (John 5:39).

Did you think that Catholics do not value the Scriptures for these functions, just because we don’t assign functions to them that are inappropriate (SS)?

No. That is a common strawmen that non-Catholics make about Catholics.

You are quite right that we do bring our biases to whatever we read, and these perceptions most certainly DO affect our ability to understand the Gospel. That is why so many horrible actions have been justified by Scripture. People distort it. It is the nature of humanity.

Are we talking about infallibility and interpretation here or (name removed by moderator)eccibility, which no human has, if we did, we would be sinless.

Not just after, but before also. One of the main functions of sacred tradition is to provide us with the divine perspective on the Scriptures. We all read it with biases. Catholics choose the Apostolic Tradition as the bias. We read it according to the faith that was passed down to us.

I can see that. I really don’t have a problem with that position at all. I think you accurately describe the Catholic method.

You are also right that there can be no contradiction between what is written and what was passed down through Tradition. Since they are both the Word of God, they are from the same Source, and therefore, must be in harmony.

Again, I don’t have an issue with that either, and if I was Catholic would be in total agreement. Non Catholics are going to disagree that some of the things taught in tradition are in harmony with the written word. Such debates often go endlessly in circles.

 

[guanophore]

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but they teach what they do regardless if you say they do or not.

No disrespect taken. I will concede that you interpret them this way, whether they are meant to be understood that way, or not.

This would be true, of course, if the Scriptures did 'teach" but they don’t. The Scriptures preserve the Word of God, but the role of teaching Jesus gave to persons, not books, however Holy.

Here is why Catholics understand them differently:

Eph 4:10-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

This passage, written by the same author, clearly states that Jesus gave PERSONS as gifts to the Church to equip the saints for the work of ministry and to become mature in the faith.

Scripture is useful and profitable in the hands of such gifted persons, that we might be perfect in the faith, and equipped for every good work. Your passage that you think teaches SS in Timothy confirms that scripture is profitable in the DUTIES that were given TO THE CHURCH, to teach, train in righteousness, reproof, etc. These are things that the Scriptures do without the persons gifted and authorized by Christ.

If all we needed was scripture, why would Jesus have founded a Church? Why would He give gifts to bring us all to maturity in the faith? Clearly Paul never expected the holy writings to be separated from the holy Church.

They followed the praxis of SS teaching from the scriptures. Its right there in the text that they taught from the scriptures and reasoned from them. They didn’t appeal to their own authority.

If you think that the Apostles did not teach from their own authority, you are gravely mistaken. In fact, they got quite upset when their authority was thwarted - especially Paul! They also passed that authority on to their successors, the bishops. They did not need to appeal to 'their own" authority because the authority they had was God’s.

Teaching and reasoning with the scriptures does NOT equate to SS.

As we all should study them. They believed the teaching because the scriptures testify about Jesus (John 5:39).

They testify, they are profitable. They are not intended to be the sole or ulitmate authority, or the only authority.

No. That is a common strawmen that non-Catholics make about Catholics.

That appeared to be the direction you were going.

Are we talking about infallibility and interpretation here or (name removed by moderator)eccibility, which no human has, if we did, we would be sinless.

It is the tendency toward sin that makes individuals a poor sole authority when interpreting Scripture. Jesus promised to lead the church into “all Truth”, but individuals can only benefit from this promise to the extent that they remain in unity with her.

 Non Catholics are going to disagree that some of the things taught in tradition are in harmony with the written word. Such debates often go endlessly in circles.

Well, Catholics do this also, sadly. This is the main reason Jesus put a Teaching Authority in place, so that no single individual would stray out of the harmony He desires.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Several points to stir the pot, since I will be teaching on the Jerusalem Council next week. First, Paul and Barnabas did not defer to the church in Jerusalem. As appointees of the leadership in Antioch, they were not in a decision-making position. They appeared, as did Peter, as witnesses to the working of the Holy Spirit. In 12:17, after Peter escapes from prison, he tells those assembled at john Mark’s mother’s house to recount his experience to James and to the brothers. It was a Greek writing convention to list people from the most important to the least, so we can infer that James was in the leadership position in Jerusalem. It is James who sums up the testimony, drawing on LXX Amos 9:11-12. Then James makes the judgment (krino) regarding the issue. Thus, we might argue that even the leader of the church in Jerusalem is using scripture as the basis for his decision about the inclusion of Gentiles as equals. The reaction of the church at Antioch was gladness at the words of consolation (v.31).

In case you are thinking that this is just the mental meanderings of a Protestant, I am using Acts of the Apostles, by Luke Timothy Johnson from the Sacra Pagina series as my primary text.

 

[guanophore]

It is James who sums up the testimony, drawing on LXX Amos 9:11-12.  Then James makes the judgment (*krino*) regarding the issue. Thus, we might argue that even the leader of the church in Jerusalem is using scripture as the basis for his decision about the inclusion of Gentiles as equals.

I don’t see how you get that the scriptural support for the decision provides more of a “basis” than the direct action of the HS testified to by Paul, Barnabas,a nd Peter. How are these elements not as much a “basis” as the scripture for the final decision?

 

[joe370]

Hi Oldtimer, thanks for the feedback. However, it certainly seems as though they did in fact leave Antioch and go to Jerusalem, to defer to the church in Jerusalem.

*This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
*

I am still wondering why Paul had to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about said question? That is not what sola scriptura advocates do today; if they have a question, they go to scripture alone for the answer; not the church. Why didn’t Paul simply search the scriptures, as the Bereans did, and settle the matter, on the spot? Why wasn’t Paul in decision-making position?

Several points to stir the pot, since I will be teaching on the Jerusalem Council next week. First, Paul and Barnabas did not defer to the church in Jerusalem. As appointees of the leadership in Antioch, they were not in a decision-making position. They appeared, as did Peter, as witnesses to the working of the Holy Spirit. In 12:17, after Peter escapes from prison, he tells those assembled at john Mark’s mother’s house to recount his experience to James and to the brothers. It was a Greek writing convention to list people from the most important to the least, so we can infer that James was in the leadership position in Jerusalem. It is James who sums up the testimony, drawing on LXX Amos 9:11-12. Then James makes the judgment (krino) regarding the issue. Thus, we might argue that even the leader of the church in Jerusalem is using scripture as the basis for his decision about the inclusion of Gentiles as equals. The reaction of the church at Antioch was gladness at the words of consolation (v.31).

In case you are thinking that this is just the mental meanderings of a Protestant, I am using Acts of the Apostles, by Luke Timothy Johnson from the Sacra Pagina series as my primary text.

 

[elvisman]

See response above.

**First of all - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 4:6 do not teach that all that is needed for salvation is in the Scriptures. **
**Remember - you MUST take ALL Scripture in context. It MUST be harmonious and CANNOT contradict itself. **

Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 20:21-23, Luke 10:16, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6 and 1 Cor. 11:2 ALL speak of the spoken (oral) authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. BUT - they do not contradict the other Scriptures for those who understand. To accept the tragic folly that is Sola Scriptura - you MUST accept that Scripture coontradicts itself.

How so, just because an answer refutes what you say and it upsets you doesn’t make it a cop out.

I explained why it is a cop-out. Go back and read my response.

Actually he gave that authority to the Apostles. Not to the whole church or the Catholic Church.

When he gave instructions to the Apostles - he was giving instructions to the leaders of his Church. Any reputable Protestant theologian will tell you the same.

So they could ratify something that contradicts the scriptures then an its ok. Of course not. Even your church teaches that it could not do that. “The Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant…”

And the word of God is not limited to only that which is written down (2 Thess. 2:15).

Show me one, single, solitary Catholic teaching that contradicts the Scriptures. I can show you MANY Protestant teachings that contradict the Sctiptures, yet you cannot do the same with any Catholic teachings. Not ONE.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the first 2 false and Scripturally contradictory teachings I will point out.

And the Holy Spirit is the one who guided the church in this fashion. The church did not decide for itself on its own authority what the answer to this question was. These teachings were later put into written form, this is address extensively in the letter to the Galatians.

**Absolutely. **
The Holy Spirit guided the Church to this decision - JUST like Jesus said he would guide the Church:
John 16:12-15
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. ***
**But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. ****He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

 

[AmateurPianist]

Sola scriptura advocates, I was just wondering: why, in Acts 15, did Paul and Barnabas (who were appointed) - defer to the church, as opposed to sacred scripture alone, for doctrinal guidance?

Acts 15 - "Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way…When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. "

Curious, what definition of “Sola Scriptura” are you using to assume that this passage of Scripture and “Sola Scriptura” are in conflict. Of course I am assuming that to you they are in conflict by virtue of you raising this question.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Firs

t of all - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 4:6 do not teach that all that is needed for salvation is in the Scriptures. Remember - you MUST take ALL Scripture in context. It MUST be harmonious and CANNOT contradict itself.

I agree that scripture cannot contradict itself. But don’t lecture me about taking scripture in context. Explain how I am taking it out of context. You make that claim, so you must prove it.

Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, John 20:21-23, Luke 10:16, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6 and 1 Cor. 11:2 ALL speak of the spoken (oral) authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

Don’t chastize me for taking scripture in context, then turn around the prooftext yourself. As a Catholic, you are bound to interpret these in light of church teaching. I am not. Did Jesus every teach from tradition? No, but he made over 100 references to scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
How so, just because an answer refutes what you say and it upsets you doesn’t make it a cop out.

I explained why it is a cop-out. Go back and read my response.

No you didn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb
Actually he gave that authority to the Apostles. Not to the whole church or the Catholic Church.

When he gave instructions to the Apostles - he was giving instructions to the leaders of his Church. Any reputable Protestant theologian will tell you the same.

Yes, the apostles were the leaders of the church, the body of Christ. Not the CC.

Quote:

So they could ratify something that contradicts the scriptures then an its ok. Of course not. Even your church teaches that it could not do that. “The Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but its servant…”

And the word of God is not limited to only that which is written down (2 Thess. 2:15).

Since you love 2 Thess 2:15, lets deal with that one.

So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (or traditions) we (the Apostles) **passed **on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Passed is in the past tense. These traditions had already been passed down. Can you name some of them that did not make it into the scriptures, that are necessary for salvation?

Show me one, single, solitary Catholic teaching that contradicts the Scriptures. I can show you MANY Protestant teachings that contradict the Sctiptures, yet you cannot do the same with any Catholic teachings. Not ONE.

LOL there are tons that are not taught in the Bible. That is a whole other thread, stay on topic. Sounds like you are getting your feathers ruffled.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are the first 2 false and Scripturally contradictory teachings I will point out.

and I will point out:

Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.

After Mary delivered our precious Lord Jesus Christ into the world Joseph did know his wife. Joseph and Mary indeed had children together, plenty of them. They were the Lord’s half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

**Purgatory **

The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus… When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

Saved, in part, by good works.

Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved.

I John 1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Acts 16:31b
…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

The church is founded on Peter.

Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

And the Holy Spirit is the one who guided the church in this fashion. The church did not decide for itself on its own authority what the answer to this question was. These teachings were later put into written form, this is address extensively in the letter to the Galatians.

Absolutely.
The Holy Spirit guided the Church to this decision - JUST like Jesus said he would guide the Church:
John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.”

He gave us all those truths, oh and he was speaking to the Apostles only. Where is Apostolic teaching preserved, in the scriptures.

---

 

[JohnnyReb]

No disrespect taken. I will concede that you interpret them this way, whether they are meant to be understood that way, or not.

This would be true, of course, if the Scriptures did 'teach" but they don’t. The Scriptures preserve the Word of God, but the role of teaching Jesus gave to persons, not books, however Holy.

I can accept that, because the scriptures don’t teach, like humans teach. They are a recording of teachings, of course Apostolic in origin.

Here is why Catholics understand them differently:

Eph 4:10-14
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

This passage, written by the same author, clearly states that Jesus gave PERSONS as gifts to the Church to equip the saints for the work of ministry and to become mature in the faith.

Hmm. The Church is founded on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. So we too believe that God gave us persons. We see persons as accountable to scripture, and their teachings are to be evaluated according to such. Reason being, we all agree that the scriptures represent Apostolic teaching, and if someone teachings something, it must be in harmony with what came before.

Scripture is useful and profitable in the hands of such gifted persons, that we might be perfect in the faith, and equipped for every good work. Your passage that you think teaches SS in Timothy confirms that scripture is profitable in the DUTIES that were given TO THE CHURCH, to teach, train in righteousness, reproof, etc. These are things that the Scriptures do without the persons gifted and authorized by Christ.

If all we needed was scripture, why would Jesus have founded a Church? Why would He give gifts to bring us all to maturity in the faith? Clearly Paul never expected the holy writings to be separated from the holy Church.

Christ founded a church because humans are involved with spreading the Gospel message (Ephesians 3:10)

If you think that the Apostles did not teach from their own authority, you are gravely mistaken. In fact, they got quite upset when their authority was thwarted - especially Paul! They also passed that authority on to their successors, the bishops. They did not need to appeal to 'their own" authority because the authority they had was God’s.

Teaching and reasoning with the scriptures does NOT equate to SS.

What I mean is that even they realize that their authority comes from Christ. I think we are in agreement about that. I think at the heart of the matter is the doctrine of Apostolic succession and what it means for the church.

It is the tendency toward sin that makes individuals a poor sole authority when interpreting Scripture. Jesus promised to lead the church into “all Truth”, but individuals can only benefit from this promise to the extent that they remain in unity with her.

Well, Catholics do this also, sadly. This is the main reason Jesus put a Teaching Authority in place, so that no single individual would stray out of the harmony He desires.

Jesus did lead the Apostles to all truth, during the Apostolic period. He delivered the faith once for all to the saints (Jude 3). The promise has been fulfilled. I would not advocate as a teacher of the Bible that my teaching would not be subject to critique by others. None of us have the license to do that.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Johnny Reb, I have answered your challenges below. You by the way are the second person I have seen use that passage from Corinthians to proof text SS.

If they (the Corinthians) weren’t to go beyond what was written that would leave them a very small canon indeed. In fact it would leave them the OT.

Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. She remained a perpetual virgin.

[BIBLEDRB]John 19:26-27[/BIBLEDRB]

If these other children did indeed come after Jesus, why did he entrust the care of his mother to an apostle, even the beloved apostle. That would have pissed off some siblings don’t you think?

**Purgatory **

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

**Saved, in part, by good works. **

[BIBLEDRB]James 2:14-20[/BIBLEDRB]

The church is founded on Peter.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 16: 16-19[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]John 21:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:31-32[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[joe370]

Curious, what definition of “Sola Scriptura” are you using to assume that this passage of Scripture and “Sola Scriptura” are in conflict. Of course I am assuming that to you they are in conflict by virtue of you raising this question.

Good question. I cannot seem to pin down a definitive answer from sola scriptura advocates. Perhaps you could provide a definition?

 

[guanophore]

I agree that scripture cannot contradict itself. But don't lecture me about taking scripture in context. Explain how I am taking it out of context. You make that claim, so you must prove it.

Well, you stated that this verse:

2 Tim 3:15-17
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Taught Sola Scriptura. Yet, when I brought up that the duty of equipping the saints for the work of the ministry was given to men, not to books, you did not seem to be able to reconcile these two verses. Either a man can pick up his Bible and become everything God intends, or not. When Catholics read the scripture, we see that Jesus founded a Church. You apparently don’t read these verses.

   Don't chastize me for taking scripture in context, then turn around the prooftext yourself. As a Catholic, you are bound to interpret these in light of church teaching. I am not. Did Jesus every teach from tradition? No, but he made over 100 references to scripture.

I was not meaning to chastize, just observing that you are taking the scriptures out of their context. You are right, you have no compunction to interpret the scriptures in the light of what God has already revealed to mankind. You are free to do with them whatever you like. You can use them for toilet paper - no one here will stop you.

Yes, Jesus taught from tradition. Yes, he taught using Scripture. As the passage notes, Scripture is useful for teaching. Why would He not? He did not say it was the only thing that was useful, or that one should use it apart from the other things God has given.

Yes, the apostles were the leaders of the church, the body of Christ. Not the CC.

The Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the CC. They were the leaders, then they ordained their successors the Bishops to take their place. The duty of the bishop was to teach sound doctrine. Scripture is useful in this duty, which belongs to persons.

 Since you love 2 Thess 2:15, lets deal with that one.

That seems a little sarcastic, don’t you think? Is there some reason we should not love all of the Scripture?

  So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (or traditions) we (the Apostles) **passed **on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Passed is in the past tense. These traditions had already been passed down. Can you name some of them that did not make it into the scriptures, that are necessary for salvation?

Yes, 1) God created mankind, and Himself provided for our salvation
2) It is He who decides what is necessary to save us
3) He founded a church for the purpose of saving us
4) that the Scripture is not to be separated from the faith of those who produced it.

LOL there are tons that are not taught in the Bible.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? And why should our understanding of what we read be less valid than yours?

The bible does not “teach”, Johnny. People teach. God gave the gifts and authority to men to teach, and to train the flock in rightousness.

After Mary delivered our precious Lord Jesus Christ into the world Joseph did know his wife. Joseph and Mary indeed had children together, plenty of them. They were the Lord’s half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.

I should have put this in the list of Traditions above. Jesus was the only son of His mother, and she remained a perpetual virgin.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

When you are willing to look at the rest of the Scriptures, you will find that these children belong to another mother. But, you are right, it is beyond the scope of this thread. It is just an example of what happens when the Scriptures are separated from the One Faith of those who produced them.

Purgatory. Saved, in part, by good works. the Church founded on Peter.

You clearly are suffering some grave understandings about Catholic faith.

Are you interested in learning why the things you think about CAtholicism are wrong, or would you prefer to remain in your ignorance?

 Where is Apostolic teaching preserved, in the scriptures.

As well as in the Church. The Word of God alive and well in the Church did not stop being the Word of God when some of it was written down.

 

[guanophore]

Hmm. The Church is founded on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the chief cornerstone. So we too believe that God gave us persons. We see persons as accountable to scripture, and their teachings are to be evaluated according to such. Reason being, we all agree that the scriptures represent Apostolic teaching, and if someone teachings something, it must be in harmony with what came before.

There are two problems here, one is that everyone who reads the scripture understands it within their own experience and education (or lack of it). That means that you can measure what I teach against how you understand scripture and you may find that it does not “measure up” according to how you read it. Your perceptions are the filter.

The other is that the Scritpures cannot hold anyone accountable. Accountability is an action that requres a person, just as authority, and teaching. These activities are things that persons do, not writings, however Holy.

Christ founded a church because humans are involved with spreading the Gospel message (Ephesians 3:10)

What has one thing got to do with the other? Anyone can read the scriptures, then go out and share the gospel. they don’t need a church for that!

What I mean is that even they realize that their authority comes from Christ. I think we are in agreement about that. I think at the heart of the matter is the doctrine of Apostolic succession and what it means for the church.

I am glad we can agree that Jesus did give the Apostles authority,and that it is God’s authority. I think you are right, the heart of the matter is, what happened to that authority? Did Jesus withdraw it, and leave them orphaned? Or, did they lose it because they abused it?

Jesus did lead the Apostles to all truth, during the Apostolic period. He delivered the faith once for all to the saints (Jude 3). The promise has been fulfilled. I would not advocate as a teacher of the Bible that my teaching would not be subject to critique by others. None of us have the license to do that.

Well, yes, the faith was delivered once for all to the saints. However, at that point, it was about 350 years or so before the Bible was formed. During those centuries, there were many heresies and disagreements about which sacred texts belonged in the Bible. How did people know the Truth?

 

[guanophore]

. You by the way are the second person I have seen use that passage from Corinthians to proof text SS.

If they (the Corinthians) weren’t to go beyond what was written that would leave them a very small canon indeed. In fact it would leave them the OT.

This is one of the best examples of taking the Scriptures out of their context that I have ever seen. It was one of the very first letters of the NT to be written, so how can it be applied to all the Scriptures when they did not yet exist?