Sola scriptura advocates, is it your belief that you have an infallible bible but no one to infallibly interpret the infallible bible.../

[Rightlydivide]

Kinda like traveling in the dark, eh?

I do not think so. I believe it is better to do that than to believe someone is infallible who is not.
Confusion trumps complete obedience to another human…in my opinion.

 

[JonNC]

I am still a little in the dark regarding sola scriptura. Sola scriptura advocates, is it your belief that you have an infallible bible but no one to infallibly interpret the infallible bible, via the guidance of the holy spirit?

Thanks, Joe…

Hi Joe,
The early Church did not count on one Bishop to be infallible. It depended on ecumenical councils to come to terms with heresies within the Church, and set doctrines.
When there is again unity of the patriarchs, I will willingly accept their councils as authoritative.

Jon

 

[rmcmullan]

Matthew,Mark,Luke and John all infallible when they wrote,hence they all disagreed?

If you’ve spent time with the Gospel parallels text, you’ll know that while the gospels agree pretty well, there are some points of disagreement. The accounts of the Resurrection in particular have some significant variances, the kind that would not withstand a police cross examination. So that throws an interesting light on “infalliable”. I think they were just men and subject to the sort of thing ordinary men are.

 

[campeador]

When there is again unity of the patriarchs, I will willingly accept their councils as authoritative.

Jon

I pray for it every day, my friend.

The Morning Offering

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I am still a little in the dark regarding sola scriptura. Sola scriptura advocates, is it your belief that you have an infallible bible but no one to infallibly interpret the infallible bible, via the guidance of the holy spirit?

Thanks, Joe…

My definition of SS is that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. I have two questions to clarify your question.
1)Are you saying that all the information we need for our salvation is not in the bible?
2)What does SS have to do with having an interpretation of scripture, fallible or infallible?

 

[joe370]

My definition of SS is that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. I have two questions to clarify your question.
1)Are you saying that all the information we need for our salvation is not in the bible?
2)What does SS have to do with having an interpretation of scripture, fallible or infallible?

You forgot to address the OP. Let’s say you are right and only scripture is given by inspiration of God, and only scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ, and proceed to teach, correct and instruct others basing their interpretation of the only thing that is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, on the bible?

 

[SSTeacher]

I am still a little in the dark regarding sola scriptura. Sola scriptura advocates, is it your belief that you have an infallible bible but no one to infallibly interpret the infallible bible, via the guidance of the holy spirit?

Thanks, Joe…

When I was an Evangelical I was a SOLO Scriptura adherent. I read different translations, of course, but I trusted only the Bibles that contained just 66 books.

I never described any Bible as “infallible,” though, because that’s a word I always associated with the papacy so I steered well clear of it, which may perhaps be the habit of other Evangelicals.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[joe370]

When I was an Evangelical I was a SOLO Scriptura adherent. I read different translations, of course, but I trusted only the Bibles that contained just 66 books.

I never described any Bible as “infallible,” though, because that’s a word I always associated with the papacy so I steered well clear of it, which may perhaps be the habit of other Evangelicals.

Cordially,
Mick

Perhaps the better word to use is inerrant. I wouldn’t belong to catholic church if I thought that the catholic church taught fallibly, regarding revealed doctrinal truth, you know what I mean. I am sure you feel the same about the orthodox church? Every Christian wants truth, doctrinally speaking, they just look for truth in different places.

Thanks for the feedback brother.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;7288937:

When I was an Evangelical I was a SOLO Scriptura

adherent. I read different translations, of course, but I trusted only the Bibles that contained just 66 books.

I never described any Bible as “infallible,” though, because that’s a word I always associated with the papacy so I steered well clear of it, which may perhaps be the habit of other Evangelicals.

Cordially,
Mick
:thumbsuperhaps the better word to use is inerrant.

Perhaps so.

I wouldn’t belong to catholic church if I thought that the catholic church taught fallibly, regarding revealed doctrinal truth, you know what I mean.

I do know what you mean.

I am sure you feel the same about the orthodox church?

I believe that inside Holy Orthodoxy I’m able to experience the fullness of truth, yes.

Every Christian wants truth, doctrinally speaking, they just look for truth in different places.

I’m not sure that’s true. I’ve encountered a view inside Evangelicalism that views doctrine as only relatively important. I think it’s a minority view but it’s an attitude that exists, nevertheless.

Thanks for the feedback brother.

You’re welcome. Your courtesy is noted and appreciated.

Fraternally,
Mick

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You forgot to address the OP. Let’s say you are right and only scripture is given by inspiration of God, and only scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ, and proceed to teach, correct and instruct others basing their interpretation of the only thing that is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, on the bible?

Whoa, there Joe. I asked my two questions so the OP would be a little more clear. Now your talking about starting churches? Let’s stick to the OP. So, in order to understand just exactly what it is you are asking,Here they are again

1)Are you saying that all the information we need for our salvation is not in the bible?
2)What does SS have to do with having an interpretation of scripture, fallible or infallible?

 

[joe370]

Whoa, there Joe. I asked my two questions so the OP would be a little more clear. Now your talking about starting churches? Let’s stick to the OP. So, in order to understand just exactly what it is you are asking,Here they are again

1)Are you saying that all the information we need for our salvation is not in the bible?
2)What does SS have to do with having an interpretation of scripture, fallible or infallible?

Richard, sorry about that. I stepped away and when I came back I thought I was looking at my other thread, which asks that very question. Please ignore that question.

Scripture doesn’t tell me that only scripture is given by inspiration of God, and that only scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness - agreed?

The answer to question number 1 is yes. I always like to be as direct as possible when answering a question.

The answer to question number 2 is everything. Let’s move away from the word infallible and stick with the word inerrant. By the way, no one is infallible, not even the apostles; Jesus and Jesus alone was/is infallible, but the fallible apostles and their fallible successors etc. etc…were endowed with the charism to teach inerrantly, regarding only the teachings passed on to them, starting on Pentecost in my humble opinion. Today, just as was the case in the 1st century, the church (I mention no names; I believe people have to figure that out on their own) - is entrusted with the authority to teach and interpret scripture inerrantly; the only other option is to believe that the church is prone to err when it comes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and if I believed that, I would not belong to the CC. I know of no one, catholic or otherwise, that believes that the teaching office of their church, regarding revealed truth, teaches fallibly or errantly, or is prone to err when it comes to reveal doctrinal truth - agreed?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, sorry about that. I stepped away and when I came back I thought I was looking at my other thread, which asks that very question. Please ignore that question.

Scripture doesn’t tell me that only scripture is given by inspiration of God, and that only scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness - agreed?

The answer to question number 1 is yes. I always like to be as direct as possible when answering a question.

Ok, you believe that God revealed inerrant truths via oral tradition that are essential for our salvation and are not found in the bible, correct? What would those truths be?

The answer to question number 2 is everything. Let’s move away from the word infallible and stick with the word inerrant. By the way, no one is infallible, not even the apostles; Jesus and Jesus alone was/is infallible, but the fallible apostles and their fallible successors etc. etc…were endowed with the charism to teach inerrantly, regarding only the teachings passed on to them, starting on Pentecost in my humble opinion. Today, just as was the case in the 1st century, the church (I mention no names; I believe people have to figure that out on their own) - is entrusted with the authority to teach and interpret scripture inerrantly; the only other option is to believe that the church is prone to err when it comes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and if I believed that, I would not belong to the CC. I know of no one, catholic or otherwise, that believes that the teaching office of their church, regarding revealed truth, teaches fallibly or errantly, or is prone to err when it comes to reveal doctrinal truth - agreed?

So you believe that your church teaches inerrantly, ok, I get that, but what does that have to do with SS, the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, you believe that God revealed inerrant truths via oral tradition that are essential for our salvation and are not found in the bible, correct? What would those truths be?

Well, one biggie would be: the canon of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

So you believe that your church teaches inerrantly, ok, I get that, but what does that have to do with SS, the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible?

The Church has taught that Sola Scriptura is an erroneous position not found in Scripture. When the Church professes this, she is doing so inerrantly.

 

[SSTeacher]

Richard Kastner;7290352:

So you believe that your church teaches inerrantly, ok, I get that, but what does that have to do with SS, the principle that all the information we need for our salvation is contained in the bible?

The Church has taught that Sola Scriptura is an erroneous position not found in Scripture. When the Church professes this, she is doing so inerrantly.

Your response sounds a little more reasonable than saying Sola Scriptura advocates will not be saved because their faith is inadequate or misplaced, which is what I understood joe370 to be suggesting. That surely isn’t official Catholic teaching, is it?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[PRmerger]

Your response sounds a little more reasonable than saying Sola Scriptura advocates will not be saved because their faith is inadequate or misplaced, which is what I understood joe370 to be suggesting. That surely isn’t official Catholic teaching, is it?

Curiously,
Mick

The Catholic Church teaches only that those who reject Jesus Christ can not be saved.

And it is not for us to say who rejects Jesus Christ.
It is not for us to say who is eternally damned.

Thus, the Catholic Church has no position on the demographics of hell.

As a latecomer to the thread I cannot say what joe370 may be suggesting, but I haven’t read any of his posts so far that claim that SS advocates cannot be saved. Can you provide a reference?

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;7290966:

Your response sounds a little more reasonable than saying Sola Scriptura

advocates will not be saved because their faith is inadequate or misplaced, which is what I understood joe370 to be suggesting. That surely isn’t official Catholic teaching, is it?

Curiously,
Mick
:thumbsup:The Catholic Church teaches only that those who reject Jesus Christ can not be saved.

And it is not for us to say who rejects Jesus Christ.
It is not for us to say who is eternally damned.

Thus, the Catholic Church has no position on the demographics of hell.

As a latecomer to the thread I cannot say what joe370 may be suggesting, but I haven’t read any of his posts so far that claim that SS advocates cannot be saved. Can you provide a reference?

Scil:

Richard Kastner;7289203:

1)Are you saying that all the information we need for our salvation is not in the bible?

The answer to question number 1 is yes. I always like to be as direct as possible when answering a question.

So I’m understanding joe370 to be saying in response to Richard Kastner’s question, “Yes, all the information we need for our salvation is not in the Bible.”

That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying.

Cordially
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I am still a little in the dark regarding sola scriptura.

I wouldn’t disagree.

To which faith community did you belong prior to your conversion to Catholicism?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[PRmerger]

So I’m understanding joe370 to be saying in response to Richard Kastner’s question, “Yes, all the information we need for our salvation is not in the Bible.”

Firstly, that’s quite a different statement than what you originally proposed. You stated (below) that joe was suggesting that SS advocates will not be saved. The above quote of joe says nothing at all about who will or won’t be saved.

Your response sounds a little more reasonable than saying Sola Scriptura advocates will not be saved because their faith is inadequate or misplaced, which is what I understood joe370 to be suggesting.

That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying.

Indeed, I am saying the same thing as joe! All “information” required for our salvation
is NOT found in the Bible. To wit: the canon of Scripture. Not found in the Bible. Required for our salvation.

 

[SSTeacher]

Indeed, I am saying the same thing as joe!

Okey Dokey.

Contentedly,
Mick