Sola Scriptura?biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sancte_joseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SIA,
Welcome to the discussion. I believe the idea is that the Bible alone being promoted is that it’s the rule of faith, and highest authority we have here on earth. It’s not the only authority, but the highest to which all other things must conform or be judged, the standard.

I hope we would all agree that having the correct interpretation of Scriptures is not only desirable but is absolutely necessary. One problem comes in regarding interpretation… Whose interpretation of these Scriptures is accurate? How do you know the interpretation you use is accurate? It comes down to who has the “rite” to teach God’s Word authoritatively? Are you guaranteed to be infallible in your teaching of what is written in the Bible?

You bring up a good example in following what Christ taught and going with what He established. If we believe that Christ taught one thing due to an errant interpretation, but when interpreted and taught without error it’s quite different, then where are we in relation to His teachings? Are we where we want to be and speaking properly about what our Lord said and established?
I agree with you. In response to whose interpretation is correct, I don’t think there are that many differences in interpretation to the vast majority of Scripture. The very few seem to be the great divide in Christianity today. How do we know for sure? the Holy Spirit has to give it to us. Do I believe that the RCC was given direction by the Holy Spirit? I do believe this, but I also believe that these interpretations were blurred and changed and distorted over the generations. Men err, plain and simple. It’s possible that nobody has Scripture 100% pegged, but I believe that if one reads and prays for the discernment, the Spirit will open their eyes Catholic or non.
 
I simply mean that if someone truly, sincerely believes that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith and final authority in matters of faith, then that someone shouldn’t use the word Trinity because it’s not found in the Bible. If they do use the word Trinity then they automatically cease to be Sola Scriptura, there is the contradiction. There was actually a poster on here a while ago (who has since been banned, I believe) who did not use the word Trinity (though he agreed with the concept) because the word itself wasn’t in the Bible. He still went to church on Sundays, though. 🤷
Sorry, I didn’t read your post carefully enough.

Actually I think your point illustrates that quickie definitions might not be enough. You really need to probe and ask good questions to get to the bottom of things. Not that the quickie definition is necessarily wrong, but perhaps incomplete and subject to clarification. I have noted that Catholicism has its own titles and definitions that also are subject to clarification. Anyway.

The phrases “sole rule of faith” and “final authority in matters of faith” sort of lend themselves to further questions. I could think of a few more I might like to ask.

I suppose under a very narrow definition of these terms that the word Trinity is not allowed. However, in real life I don’t know of anybody like that.
 
Your claim was that God does not give His word to men without an infallible interpreter. Yet God had been giving His word to men for 1500 years before the founding of the Church. The Church requires no more infallible interpretation than this.
Jesus said that he had pity for the crowd because they were like sheep without a shepherd. This implies that there indeed was no one to interpret scripture correctly to them before Jesus came.

I don’t agree with the claim that God does not give His word to men without an infallible interpreter. If all of them had interpreted scripture correctly, they would never have crucified Jesus.

However, Jesus has solved that problem now. He has established his church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, to interpret scripture infallibly with the aid of the Spirit, so that people can know and understand the truth.
 
I agree with you. In response to whose interpretation is correct, I don’t think there are that many differences in interpretation to the vast majority of Scripture. The very few seem to be the great divide in Christianity today. How do we know for sure? the Holy Spirit has to give it to us. Do I believe that the RCC was given direction by the Holy Spirit? I do believe this, but I also believe that these interpretations were blurred and changed and distorted over the generations. Men err, plain and simple. It’s possible that nobody has Scripture 100% pegged, but I believe that if one reads and prays for the discernment, the Spirit will open their eyes Catholic or non.
First Statement… agreed

However… show me one of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church that has been changed - BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - or distorted over the generations, and I will leave the Faith.

The problem is not what the Church has and continues to teach… it is what those who leave the Church, or attack the Church THINK the Church teaches…

add those who start new faith communities (can’t call them churches, because they are not) and we see the mess we have with christianity.

.
 
First Statement… agreed

However… show me one of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church that has been changed - BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - or distorted over the generations, and I will leave the Faith.

The problem is not what the Church has and continues to teach… it is what those who leave the Church, or attack the Church THINK the Church teaches…

add those who start new faith communities (can’t call them churches, because they are not) and we see the mess we have with christianity.

.
I don’t want to get into a spat about what the RCC teaches and what some people say it teaches. Suffice it to say that some people are right and some are wrong no matter what the scenario. My point is that I believe that Catholicism has most of the interpretations of Scripture right but yet draws its own conclusion in some form or way from them to attempt to be exclusive. Exclusive yes but correct? Not always.
 
I don’t want to get into a spat about what the RCC teaches and what some people say it teaches. Suffice it to say that some people are right and some are wrong no matter what the scenario. My point is that I believe that Catholicism has most of the interpretations of Scripture right but yet draws its own conclusion in some form or way from them to attempt to be exclusive. Exclusive yes but correct? Not always.
😉 Can’t help but ask… which “conclusions” ?? Or perhaps this is fodder for another thread.

My guess is that the list might include Sola Scriptura (and most likely the source and summit of all Christianity - The Real Presence in the Eucharist)

.
 
😉 Can’t help but ask… which “conclusions” ?? Or perhaps this is fodder for another thread.

My guess is that the list might include Sola Scriptura (and most likely the source and summit of all Christianity - The Real Presence in the Eucharist)

.
Well you guessed wrong. Why do most all Catholics think that just because one is Protestant, he/she doesn’t believe in the Real Presence? I just don’t get why that stereotype cannot be overtaken. I am speaking of those Catholic dogmas that cannot be found in Scripture such as the assumption, the immaculate conception and purgatory.
 
I understand your point SIA, but doesn’t it become a bit arbitrary.

For example, someone might think that the teaching of purgatory is in the bible but the real presence isn’t.
 
Your claim was that God does not give His word to men without an infallible interpreter. Yet God had been giving His word to men for 1500 years before the founding of the Church. The Church requires no more infallible interpretation than this.
You mean the OT?

I might meantion that Congregation of Israel occurs quite a bit, which is translated “Church” based on the Aramaic cognate of the “original” Hebrew עֵדָה is the word for “Church.” The OT Church.

And she existed quite a long while before God spoke to Moses. In fact, no her, no Moses.
 
Heh, heh. Wikipedia can be helpful at times, and disastrously un-helpful at other times. The Catholic position is that Sacred Tradition is what produced Sacred Scripture, so the two cannot be separated.
Sure it can. Like seperating the heart from the rest of the circulatory system. Same result: pumping air.
The Church was in existence for years before the Bible canon closed.
And who closed it btw?😉
The problem is that they like to claim that they do not have extra-Biblical traditions.
Funny how that claim isn’t in the Bible.😛
It contradicts Sola Scriptura. If someone truly believes the “Bible Alone” then the word Trinity should not be in their working vocabulary.
There are Christians for whom this is absolutely true. The Bible doesn’t say, “Celebrate Christmas” so they don’t. But you’re right, it is somewhat inconsistent and who are we to point that out. :o
 
I don’t believe that anyone is saying that the Bible is the only world known source of authority that is prudent to the Christian faith, but what has been said by Christ himself and other authors of the New Testament time and time again is that the important factors and events in history solidly attainable to the Christian IS written in Scripture. Scripture is surely NOT the be all to end all in the Christian life, but it is the one thing that we have that is truly God’s Word and truly the truth unchanged for 2,000+ years. It is by which Christians should be equipped as a plumb and level. Paul eluded to this.
Just sticking to the Bible, true and unchanged: how do you understand it unless someone guides you?
St. Luke stated that explicitely (Acts 8:31).
 
An example of what happens when Sola Scriptura runs against Apostolic Tradition:
Joshua Joshua 22:10 And when they came to the region about the Jordan, that lies in the land of Canaan, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas’seh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar of great size. 11 And the people of Israel heard say, “Behold, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas’seh have built an altar at the frontier of the land of Canaan, in the region about the Jordan, on the side that belongs to the people of Israel.” 12 And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh, to make war against them. 13 Then the people of Israel sent to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manas’seh, in the land of Gilead, Phin’ehas the son of Elea’zar the priest, 14 and with him ten chiefs, one from each of the tribal families of Israel, every one of them the head of a family among the clans of Israel. 15 And they came to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas’seh, in the land of Gilead, and they said to them, 16 “Thus says the whole congregation of the LORD, 'What is this treachery which you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away this day from following the LORD, by building yourselves an altar this day in rebellion against the LORD? 17 Have we not had enough of the sin at Pe’or from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which there came a plague upon the congregation of the LORD, 18 that you must turn away this day from following the LORD? And if you rebel against the LORD today he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. 19 But now, if your land is unclean, pass over into the LORD’s land where the LORD’s tabernacle stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against the LORD, or make us as rebels by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.’”

21 Then the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manas’seh said in answer to the heads of the families of Israel, 22 “The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith toward the LORD, spare us not today 23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD; or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or cereal offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance. 24 Nay, but **we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, ‘What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel ? 25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you Reubenites and Gadites; you have no portion in the LORD.’ So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD. 26 Therefore we said, ‘Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice, 27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between the generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings; lest your children say to our children in time to come, “You have no portion in the LORD.”’ 28 And we thought, If this should be said to us or to our descendants in time to come, we should say, ‘Behold the copy of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness between us and you.’ ** 29 Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn away this day from following the LORD by building an altar for burnt offering, cereal offering, or sacrifice, other than the altar of the LORD our God that stands before his tabernacle!”

30 When Phin’ehas the priest and the chiefs of the congregation, the heads of the families of Israel who were with him, heard the words that the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas’sites spoke, it pleased them well. 31 And Phin’ehas the son of Elea’zar the priest said to the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manas’sites, “Today we know that the LORD is in the midst of us, because you have not committed this treachery against the LORD; now you have saved the people of Israel from the hand of the LORD.” 32 Then Phin’ehas the son of Elea’zar the priest, and the chiefs, returned from the Reubenites and the Gadites in the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the people of Israel, and brought back word to them. 33 And the report pleased the people of Israel; and the people of Israel blessed God and spoke no more of making war against them, to destroy the land where the Reubenites and the Gadites were settled. 34 The Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness; “For,” said they, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."

Now, note the following:
cont…
 
The Sola Scriptura folks were quite correct: the Law given to Moses had restricted sacrifices to one altar before the one Tabernacle. Btw, the tribes living on the East of the Jordan was a deviation from what God had commanded, revealed in His Word, and to which the Prophet Moses objected (Numbers 32, especially verses 6-15). Sort of like the innovation of the monarchy (I Kingdoms/Samuel 8, esp. verses 6-7), but we go a Messiah out of that (I Chronicles 17). Yet is those who add Tradition to the mix who save Israel that day, as the chiefs of the Assembly/Congregation (we would say “Church”) of Israel say.

However, the Sola Scriptura first accuse the Eastern tribes of rebelling against God’s Word, setting something that they see in addition to, and hence in opposition to (in their mind) in order to supplant God’s Word, and replacing the Word of God with the traditions of men. And their solution? Just stick to the text and cross over to us.

The Eastern tribes had the foresight to see that, people being people, and sin being sin, that the Books of Moses were not going to suffice to stop Israel from sin. Those on the West Bank would focus on the literal promises to Abraham (which said nothing of the East Bank) and would interpret it in a manner which suited their sense of sensibilities: the Promised Land should fit our idea of the Land of Canaan (sort of like the idea of eating Body and Blood). Acting on this, they would exclude the Easterners, leading them to sin.

So the solution? Set up an interpretation of the letter of the law that preserved an indisputable indication of its spirit. And this they did.

A Melkite priest gave the best one word definition of Chrsitianity: witness.

Now, the problem most Protestants have with Tradition is the idea that the Church which set it up has tried to suppliment, and hence oppose, in order to supplant, Scripture.

cont…
 
We do not believe in, say, the Real Presense because St. Ignatius of Antioch, whom the Aposles ordained themselves as successor of St. Peter in the place where the disciples were first called Christians, writes in c. 105:
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they will not confess that the Eucharist is the self same flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

we believe in the Real Presence because He said, “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood.” Rising, He appeared and was known to the Apostles in the breakding of the bread that first Pascha (Luke 24:13-36 NOT btw, in His opening of the scriptures, though that did make their heart burn). Those who continued steadfast in the Apostles’ doctrines communed in the breaking of bread in the prayers of the DL every Sunday from the Resurrection until August 31, 2008 (Acts 2:42, 20:7), which we received, delievered to us by the Apostles from the Lord (I Cor. 11:23. btw. when these words were written, the Church had been gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7) for over two decades).

Now, the Aposles weren’t doing this because of the verses quoted. Rather the verses were written to record what the Apostles did, what they were doing, believing, teaching, whether by word or letter (I Thess. 2:15) so those who followed could stand fast and hold these traditions, and withdraw (I Thes. 3:6) from those who refused to walk according to the traditions which they delievered and which we received.

St. Ignatius stood fast and held that tradition, and did not neglect that gift that was given him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, guarding what was committed to him. (I Tim. 4:14, 6:20) St. Ignatius set in order bishops in every city as the Aposltes commanded, to hold fast the faithful word as it had been taught, by word or letter, to both exhort and convict by sound doctrine those of a different opinion (heresia) who contradicted, and refused to walk according to that tradition. (cf. Titus 1:5-9). As the letters show, strong in the grace of Christ Jesus, he was committing these traditions he heard by word from the Apostles to the Faithful to teach others. (2 Tim. 2:1-2), that the Catholic Church continue in breaking the bread, the communion of the self same Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).

cont…
 
We do not believe in the Real Presence because St. Ignatius says so: he received the same Faith we received, and he stands as a Witness that God has erected between the Apostles and us, as a sign post as to whether we walk according to the Tradition of the Apostles or not. “Lo! I am with you always (Greek: “all the days”) even unto the end of the age.” Those were His parting words. And so He has: rather than standing gazing, the Church has raised up witnessses to that same Faith, who stand as witnesses between us and the Apostles. We have not abandoned the Bible for the Fathers (and Mothers!). Rather surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are able to point to the Witness, like the Eastern Tribes to the altar on the Jordan, to show that we are right in our interpretation of Scripture, including the Words of Institution (themselves written in the Gospels to reflect Church practice). Every generation, we can document, from the Apostles to this day, those who, if they lived in our day, would come to OUR Church and commune with us (of course, closed communion is part of that Apostolic Tradition). Their Faith is our Faith, and that is the value of their words, not that they replace the Bible. Rather they preserve the full import of the Bible.

Tradition is giving our ancestors, our Fathers, the ones who passed down the Faith and copied and preserved the Bible, a vote.

Catechesis means “echo,” and Christ’s Word has roared throughout the generations through Apostolic Tradition.

As our priest says, if you come up with an interpretation of
Scripture that no one else has, be cautious and ask yourself if you are wrong. If it contradicts what has gone before, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WRONG.

How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
 
Again, you’re confusing the description of sola scriptura with the teaching of sola scriptura.

1 Tim 3:14-17: 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that it is scripture that God has given for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, not the Catholic church.

Let me ask you this: when Jesus confronted Satan in the wilderness, did He appeal to the authority of scripture by saying “it is written…” or did He appeal to the authority of the Catholic church by saying “the Catholic church has declared…”?
First problem is that this verse was created prior to most New Testament books being written. As such you will have to remove most of the NT books in the Bible that you are reading if you use this verse for Sola Scriptura.

The second issue is that Christ is replying to Satan as Satan is using Old Testment verses against him. His responses are also coming from the Old Testament. They are quoted in the NT as responses. The original thoughts are Old Testament.

The other problem is NT scripture did not exist yet. He is not using it to define Sola Scriptura.
 
How to interpret Acts 8:31? The believers of sola scriptura cannot tell us. They have no one to guide them.
The eunuch had the Old Testament. Philip met him before the New Testament was written. What he needed was someone to tell him about Jesus so he could see how he fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament.
 
The eunuch had the Old Testament. Philip met him before the New Testament was written. What he needed was someone to tell him about Jesus so he could see how he fulfilled the prophecy of the Old Testament.
I guess that’s why Revelation is so plain to understand.😛
 
You mean the OT?

I might meantion that Congregation of Israel occurs quite a bit, which is translated “Church” based on the Aramaic cognate of the “original” Hebrew עֵדָה is the word for “Church.” The OT Church.

And she existed quite a long while before God spoke to Moses. In fact, no her, no Moses.
No disagreements here, Isa. I was challenging the statement that God does not give revelation without an infallible means of interpreting it. The fact of OT revelation, however, disproves this claim. No one in their right minds, I would hope, would say the Jewish leaders prior to the advent of Christ were infallible on faith and morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top