Sola scriptura challenge

[Radical]

Hey, Reuben J

Thought I highlight this cos I think it is central to the issue in discussion here. Maybe our Protestant friends should look at this again.

well, for you I’ll look at it now…having missed it the first time.

HappilyCatholic:

Christ never taught that we should rely on our own judgement or interpretation of His teaching.

so when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he told him (off the record) that he wasn’t to try and understand this stuff himself, and that he had better go immediately to the nearest apostle and get a good interpretation?

That is why He sent the Apostles…

did Jesus send them to interpret his words or to pass on his words or both?..perhaps you could provide the verses that you think establish your position. In 1 Cor 15 Paul writes:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…

earlier at chapter 4 Paul had written, “Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?”

Further, even if they were sent to pass on and interpret Jesus’s message, it doesn’t mean that any further (apostolic) interpretation was needed after they provided their epistles and gospels to the church

…and he sent them over and over and that did not end upon Christ’s death on earth. It continued.

The apostles did continue as messengers after Christ departed, but that hardly estblishes the validity or need for a magisterium today

I’m not really sure at what point those who adhere to SS think Christ taught that we should simply drop everything but written word AND that was possible because everything was contained in written word.

You are taking the matter of SS out of the historical context in which it arose. Here, again is what I wrote just a little earlier: You are probably aware that the concept of Sola scriptura became more popular in the early 16th century. At that time, given what the western portion of the visible church was doing and teaching, it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error. That observation caused those good people to wonder what, if anything, could be trusted if the church was capable of error. Their investigation told them that councils and popes often contradicted one another and so they were left with Scripture as being the only thing that could be said to reliably present the truth and only the truth. As such:

a) There should be no need to prove that the bible is reliable in the discussion amongst conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants as each acknowledge that as truth;

b) This does not mean that all tradition or man-made assessments are in error, but it means that one will find error amongst tradition and man-made assessments; and

c) this aspect of Sola Scriptura that I have discussed here is not something to be proven from scripture (it was/is a given that scripture is reliable), but rather the “Sola” aspect is established by an historical assessment that shows the error and contradictions in the teachings and actions of councils and popes. (It is not so much an exercise in proving the reliability of Scripture, but rather an exercise in proving the lack of reliability in the other sources…leaving scripture standing alone).

To this bit I would now add that d) there is no need (for the pruposes of this aspect of SS)to show that Christ taught that we should simply drop everything but written word AND that was possible because everything was contained in written word…it is sufficient to show that popes and councils contradict each other (as both can’t be right, error must be present) or to show that the teachings of the CC are (likely) at odds with the original message

Assuming He knew the Scriptures would be written and that His Apostles would distribute copies of that to believers, wouldn’t he have put something in place to instruct them as to how they should use it?

and wouldn’t that something be the Holy Spirit, who is provided to all believers?

 

[banjo]

I would say that it is more of an assessment than a tradition. You are probably aware that the concept of Sola scriptura became more popular in the early 16th century. At that time, given what the western portion of the visible church was doing and teaching, it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error. That observation caused those good people to wonder what, if anything, could be trusted if the church was capable of error. Their investigation told them that councils and popes often contradicted one another and so they were left with Scripture as being the only thing that could be said to reliably present the truth and only the truth.

Your paragraph presents a pretty simplistic view of the events commonly referred to as the Reformation.

I would say that it is more of an assessment than a tradition.

I wonder if this is just a question of semantics. A man-made ‘assessment’ that has be going on for nearly 500 years sounds very much like tradition.

At that time, given what the western portion of the visible church was doing and teaching, it became obvious (to some) that the western portion of the visible church was teaching and acting in error.

I don’t believe you can substantiate the notion that the entire western Church was teaching and acting in error. The call for reform had been going on for about 200 years before Martin Luther.

That observation caused those good people to wonder what, if anything, could be trusted if the church was capable of error.

In response to this accusation St. Francis de Sales said in part, *“Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody was a scholar?—such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err?” *This excerpt came from a group a writings regarding the concept of mission.

Their investigation told them that councils and popes often contradicted one another and so they were left with Scripture as being the only thing that could be said to reliably present the truth and only the truth.

It would be helpful if you would be more specific, e.g., which pre-sixteenth century councils and popes contradicted one another and on which topics.

 

[banjo]

And using your own standard, I have not found the text in the Bible that says that it is impossible for the Bishop of Rome to be in error when he teaches on faith and morals. So if it isn’t in the Bible, wouldn’t that be a man-made tradition.

Some of the texts for the doctrine of infallibility are; Mt 16:17-19; 18-18; Lk 10:16; Jn 16:13; and 21:15-17. You may say you don’t see the word infallibility itself but the implication is there whereas I cannot find even an implication for the notion that one should rely on Scripture as the sole source of guidance. The tradition of the Church is not man-made but originates with Christ handed on through the Apostles as Paul mention to the Thessalonians (2:14). There are several other places which indicate Sacred Tradition, Eph 2:3; 2 Tm 1:14; 2:2 etc.
“Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all.” The Early Papcy Adrian Fortescue

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Banjo,

Some of the texts for the doctrine of infallibility are; Mt 16:17-19; 18-18; Lk 10:16; Jn 16:13; and 21:15-17. You may say you don’t see the word infallibility itself but the implication is there whereas I cannot find even an implication for the notion that one should rely on Scripture as the sole source of guidance. The tradition of the Church is not man-made but originates with Christ handed on through the Apostles as Paul mention to the Thessalonians (2:14). There are several other places which indicate Sacred Tradition, Eph 2:3; 2 Tm 1:14; 2:2 etc.
“Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all.” The Early Papcy Adrian Fortescue

God bless

 

[Newbie2]

How do you know that the Church is infallible except by personally interpreting Scripture to agree with the Church in the proof it submits for its infallibility?

I think we would agree that “personal” interpretation of Scipture in not infallible, no?

No. Exactly the same logic. If a source has to be incapable of being incorrect before you can believe it, then you will accept and learn nothing. By that standard you are still stuck in kindergarten because you can not accept your ABCs.

In the realm of everyday life, we receive truth from sources that are capable of error. so this whole line of “A source must be incapable of being incorrect before it can teach truth” is totally bogus and fallacious.

I reject the notion that we can use the same logic in both circumstances. Would you agree that we need the Holy Spirit to properly interpret Scripture? That’s a factor that we haven’t thrown in there.

 

[Newbie2]

But remember that I am taught the word of God from my local church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth. My local church teaches me that the Bible is the “Word of God” but is silent on whether it is the “Only Word of God”. So under this analogy I am not free to choose for myself. It is in connection with my local church, the pillar and the foundation of the truth.

So how do you know your “local church” is such as you claim? Special revelation? Does your “local church” claim to be infallible (or it’s pastor, minister or leader claim such)?

I really don’t understand how you came to such a conclusion. Help me.

To me, even for non-Catholics who disagree with Apostolic succession, the concept at least makes some sense and there is some biblical evidence, although they may call it inference or indirect evidence. I don’t understand how every other church throughout the history of Christianity can get it wrong, yet your one, single “local church” gets it right. I would appreciate your elaboration.

I guess what I’m asking is what is it that convinces you to choose to believe that your local church is the pillar and foundation?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Some of the texts for the doctrine of infallibility are; Mt 16:17-19; 18-18; Lk 10:16; Jn 16:13; and 21:15-17. You may say you don’t see the word infallibility itself but the implication is there whereas I cannot find even an implication for the notion that one should rely on Scripture as the sole source of guidance. The tradition of the Church is not man-made but originates with Christ handed on through the Apostles as Paul mention to the Thessalonians (2:14). There are several other places which indicate Sacred Tradition, Eph 2:3; 2 Tm 1:14; 2:2 etc.
“Papal infallibility is a negative protection. We are confident that God will not allow a certain thing to happen; that is all.” The Early Papcy Adrian Fortescue

The problem is…

That with bad hermeneutics one can say that Scripture implies just about anything they want it to imply. That is why I am concerned about what it says, not what it implies.

Suffice it to say that the leap required from going from these cited texts to the Bishop of Rome is incapable of being in error when speaking on faith and morals, to me is huge. Particularly when I don’t even see anything like “incapable of being incorrect” in these Scriptures yet.

So, suffice it to say, I’m totally not there yet.

And at the same time I could take the Scriptures in the other thread that allegedly prove SS and claim they at least imply it. And I’m sure you will be just as enthusiastic for my claims as I am yours. So I won’t go there.

One other reason I am not there yet is that several of the interpretations of the Bible offered by your infallible authority and the infallible authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sort of leave me scratching my head and saying huh, In my mind at least, an infallible authority should produce interpretations of Scripture that when I read them, they really stick out as being correct, not leave me saying “huh”.

But I am sure that you have no issues with the interpretations of the Bible offered by your infallible authority. So therefore, it must be me.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why I am NotTooSmart.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I reject the notion that we can use the same logic in both circumstances. Would you agree that we need the Holy Spirit to properly interpret Scripture? That’s a factor that we haven’t thrown in there.

Here is your original quote

OK, by that we can say that your local church in not infallible, no? So how can you be sure that your local church was right in saying that the bible is the only infallible source? Since your local church seems to be teaching that it itself is not infallible, it has no standing to declare the bible as infallible.

Now I am going to take your exact same logic and apply it to your kindergarten teacher.

OK, by that we can say that kindergarten teacher not infallible, no? So how can you be sure that your kindergarten teacher was right in teaching you your alphabet? Since your kindergarten teacher is itself is not infallible, it has no standing to teach you your alphabet.

Obviously the second quote is absurd. So therefore I summarily reject the logic of the first quote as absurd.

 

[NotTooSmart]

So how do you know your “local church” is such as you claim? Special revelation? Does your “local church” claim to be infallible (or it’s pastor, minister or leader claim such)?

I really don’t understand how you came to such a conclusion. Help me.

Because the text says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and my local church is a Christian church.

To me, even for non-Catholics who disagree with Apostolic succession, the concept at least makes some sense and there is some biblical evidence, although they may call it inference or indirect evidence. I don’t understand how every other church throughout the history of Christianity can get it wrong, yet your one, single “local church” gets it right. I would appreciate your elaboration.

I guess what I’m asking is what is it that convinces you to choose to believe that your local church is the pillar and foundation?

The text of the passage convinces me of that.

Oh and I am not saying that only my church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Every church that is Christian is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.

 

[Mickey]

That is why I am concerned about what it says, not what it implies.

But the Sacred Scriptures “implies” the Holy Tinity and you accept that—do you not?

 

[happilycatholic]

Hey, Reuben J well, for you I’ll look at it now…having missed it the first time.

so when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he told him (off the record) that he wasn’t to try and understand this stuff himself, and that he had better go immediately to the nearest apostle and get a good interpretation?
did Jesus send them to interpret his words or to pass on his words or both?..perhaps you could provide the verses that you think establish your position. In 1 Cor 15 Paul writes:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…

 

[Radical]

Your paragraph presents a pretty simplistic view of the events commonly referred to as the Reformation.

agreed…tis pretty hard to go beyond simplistic in this venue…but did the simple summary miss something that invalidates the 3 points at the end?

I wonder if this is just a question of semantics. A man-made ‘assessment’ that has be going on for nearly 500 years sounds very much like tradition.

You have a point…if followers merely accept SS w/o question then it is a tradition, but if they examine the question themselves, then it is an assessment

I don’t believe you can substantiate the notion that the entire western Church was teaching and acting in error.

It doesn’t have to be the entire western Church, it just has to be the hierarchy…would be rather hard to show what each individual member of the western church was teaching

In response to this accusation St. Francis de Sales said in part, *“Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody was a scholar?—such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err?” *This excerpt came from a group a writings regarding the concept of mission.

…and St Francis of Assisi is credited with saying, “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” Much teaching and preaching was done by the church with its actions in selling indulgences and by the manner in which it did so.

It would be helpful if you would be more specific, e.g., which pre-sixteenth century councils and popes contradicted one another and on which topics.

I’ll have to be rather simplistic here again…in Luther: man between God and the Devil it reads, Had not the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-517) in 1516 openly overturned the Council of Constance and even declared the Council of Basil invalid? “And so the councils contradict each other so that we, who build on them, ultimately no longer know where pope, council, Church, Christ, or we must stand…Thus we are forced to say, whether we like it or not: the council has erred.”

I am aware of the standard answers used to justify the CC’s actions such as: “The Church never officially taught that (it was merely an unofficial action or teaching),” or “that council was only a local council and so we don’t claim infallibility for it” or “The Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra on that occasion”…To be frank, I find those answers disingenuous. Allow any group of believers that type of answer and any group of believers could claim infallibility for their official teaching. It is as simple as deciding what is the official teaching one wants to present and then declaring that any past teaching, that is at odds with the declared official teaching, was not official teaching and therefore doesn’t count.

 

[Newbie2]

Obviously the second quote is absurd. So therefore I summarily reject the logic of the first quote as absurd.

Oops. I edited the second quote and it didn’t exactly come out right.

Read my first quote again, please.

Lemme restate it:

If you do not consider your church to be infallible,
then it’s possible for your church to be wrong about (it’s) interpretation of Scripture.

If you do consider your church to be infallible, it says so nowhere from Scripture.

Where is the logical flaw in either statement?

Because the text says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and my local church is a Christian church.

The text of the passage convinces me of that.

Oh and I am not saying that only my church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Every church that is Christian is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.

Fair enough. But not all Christian churches agree on theological matters. How do you reconcile that fact?

 

[happilycatholic]

Here is your original quote

Now I am going to take your exact same logic and apply it to your kindergarten teacher.

Obviously the second quote is absurd. So therefore I summarily reject the logic of the first quote as absurd.

Said Kindergarten teacher was not passed the alphabet from 2000 years of intimate knowledge of it and it’s creator. Said alphabet is not divinely inspired.

Christ did not hand over the alphabet to the kindergarten teacher to safe keep until His return.

The ramafications of getting the alphabet wrong even until the end of time is not damnation to hell.

 

[Newbie2]

That’s what I was trying to say. Obviously, I failed.

 

[happilycatholic]

I"The Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra on that occasion"…To be frank, I find those answers disingenuous.

Unlike non-catholics faiths, we have a way of knowing Christ’s teaching and the Pope’s opinion. It is called, “Speaking from the Chair of Peter” or ex cathedra. When the Pope does this, he is giving us God’s Holy Word. If he is not doing this, the Pope is giving us his most Holy *opinion. *

All this means is we can trust what the Pope is telling us is absolutely accurate with Scripture and Tradition as it was taught by Christ and His Apostles.

Allow any group of believers that type of answer and any group of believers could claim infallibility for their official teaching. It is as simple as deciding what is the official teaching one wants to present and then declaring that any past teaching, that is at odds with the declared official teaching, was not official teaching and therefore doesn’t count

Wow, no offense but you just defined Protestantism to a tee. And you have what assurances here? Basically that you read Scripture and get the same idea and it sounds plausible to you. Who do you go to if you’re not quite sure? Your pastor?

Well, we do too. Who is anyone to tell us their pastor is better informed than our Pope? That’s what bothers me most. Even when I was Protestant I believed the Pope had intimate knowledge of Scripture.

 

[happilycatholic]

That’s what I was trying to say. Obviously, I failed.

Nah,

But let’s face it, in order to make a logical argument when using a comparison, the comparison has to first be logical.

I’m not sure what one could compare Scripture to. Scripture by its very nature defies logic. It was given to man by God. That’s hard to compare.

 

[banjo]

I’ll have to be rather simplistic here again…in Luther: man between God and the Devil it reads, Had not the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-517) in 1516 openly overturned the Council of Constance and even declared the Council of Basil invalid? “And so the councils contradict each other so that we, who build on them, ultimately no longer know where pope, council, Church, Christ, or we must stand…Thus we are forced to say, whether we like it or not: the council has erred.”

I am aware of the standard answers used to justify the CC’s actions such as: “The Church never officially taught that (it was merely an unofficial action or teaching),” or “that council was only a local council and so we don’t claim infallibility for it” or “The Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra on that occasion”…To be frank, I find those answers disingenuous. Allow any group of believers that type of answer and any group of believers could claim infallibility for their official teaching. It is as simple as deciding what is the official teaching one wants to present and then declaring that any past teaching, that is at odds with the declared official teaching, was not official teaching and therefore doesn’t count.

It doesn’t have to be the entire western Church, it just has to be the hierarchy…would be rather hard to show what each individual member of the western church was teaching

I don’t believe you could substantiate even just the hierarchy as being totally in error. In 1517 in the final session of Lateran V, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola delivered a long address on the evils fcing the Church and the need for the pope to force reforms. Mirandola warned that if the pope did not, “God Himself will cut off the rotten limbs with fire and sword.” Even this does not translate into entire corruption.

As to the rest of your post I would offer a reply from Lateran V but your last paragraph pretty much implies you would not be impressed. It seems we are at an impasse. I would like to leave you with a thought. Christ is one person and so the mind and will of Christ are one. Yet we have today many religious bodies professing to proclaim that one mind and will. This cannot be. Therefore, either all of the bodies are wrong or one and only one is correct and the others are in error to one degree or another. I believe the former and I believe that one body is what we know today as the Catholic Church.
God bless…

 

[banjo]

And that ladies and gentlemen is why I am NotTooSmart.

Don’t run yourself down.

That with bad hermeneutics one can say that Scripture implies just about anything they want it to imply. That is why I am concerned about what it says, not what it implies.

NotTooSmart…hang in there…Jn 6:53 says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Now, that is what it says, but I think you would take it to imply something else. No? Please, understand me, I’m not trying to score points here…I’m just sayin’.

One other reason I am not there yet is that several of the interpretations of the Bible offered by your infallible authority and the infallible authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sort of leave me scratching my head and saying huh,

I won’t run Mormon beliefs into the ground any more than I would run the beliefs of anyone else into the ground. That said, when I consider their theology I can only remark that calling yourself the Church of Jesus Christ does not make you the Church of Jesus Christ. But that’s another story…God bless…

 

[NotTooSmart]

But the Sacred Scriptures “implies” the Holy Tinity and you accept that—do you not?

Good question.

The issue is whether the Bible “implies” the doctrine of the trinity or flat out defines it.

In argument of the imply side one might say (1) Nowhere does the Bible use the word trinity. This is weak because trinity is just a title given to a theological proposition. A stronger argument would be that there is no one single passage in the Bible where the trinity is comprehensively defined.

The counter argument to this would be that there are individual passages in the Bible where we say the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit all defined as God. So I would think this is enough to define the trinity using the Bible.

But if not, the implication is strong enough that I don’t feel like I have to jump through hoops, make wide leaps in logic, and totally violate my sense of logic and intellectual integrity in order to accept it. In other words, if (and I am not convinced it is) the Trinity is only an implication and not a definition, it is a very credible one.

And no to any JW and Mormons reading this thread…I am not going to respond to any diversion onto whether the trinity is Biblical.