Sola scriptura challenge

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

This sounds like a perfectly reasonable question to me… Thanks for asking.

Exactly. Now, which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are not supported by Scripture which you feel that you must jump through hoops and make wide leaps in logic?

In reading his response it seems to center around the Pope can teach no error concerning faith or morals when he is speaking ‘ex cathadra’. Marian doctrines may or may not come up later.

As I appreciate the argument, the promise of Christ in Matthew that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church lays the foundation. The promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit to teach all Truth erects the ‘structure’. And, the delivery of the Spirit on Penetcost Sunday, empowering the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations puts the ‘roof’ firmly in place. This is the house built on a rock that withstood the winds and storms unlike the house built on sand that failed and was totally ruined.

Best wishes,

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

I’ll call … your bluff…

God bless

Since you ask, I see absolutely nothing in Scripture to support anybody “incapable of being incorrect” in any given setting, much less your pope.

I have absolutely no interest in trying to convert you from “the error of your ways” and convert you to my way of thinking. If I were, my approach in this thread would be totally different.

As I have said, I do not adhere to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine anyway. I honestly do not think it is necessary for me to do so. All that is really necessary for me is to hold fast to the one source that I know is the infallible and inerrant Word of God and to test all competing claims of authority before I buy into them.

But what I will do, is to go back through this thread to the Scripture verses cited and tell you the leaps that I would have to make that I don’t think I can make in order to buy into your interpretation. This is a part of testing the claims that you make.

This will take a little time (that I may or may not have) but if you want I will do this.

Now I don’t expect this will persuade you. It is probably because I am NotTooSmart that I can’t seem to make the leaps in Scripture that you seem to make with ease… But it is what it is.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Groundrule. If I am to be inundated with posts from folks that want to convert me from the error of my ways, bring it on. However, time will not permit me to respond to all of them. After all it is a gazillion of you and one of me. I will respond to the posts that pose the most interesting and challenging questions and work backwards. Fair.

Hi, Mickey,
In reading his response it seems to center around the Pope can teach no error concerning faith or morals when he is speaking ‘ex cathadra’. Marian doctrines may or may not come up later.

As I appreciate the argument, the promise of Christ in Matthew that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church lays the foundation.

And this would be Matthew 16:18. Somehow I have to leap from “the gates of Hell will not overpower it” to “Impossible to err when teaching on faith and morals”

Of course, you will say if the church teaches error then the gates of hell have prevailed against it. But this Scripture does not say that, instead this is a leap you are making. Too me it is much easier to believe this Scripture means that at the end of the church age, the church will be victorious and the powers of hell will not have overpowered the church than what you are proposing.

And I don’t see why I believe that the gates of hell not prevailing against it only applies to your church but does not apply to mine. It is much easier for me to believe that God does not have a favorite church as opposed to God giving your church special benefits that he does not mine.

But again, it is probably because I am NotTooSmart that I am just not seeing what you see in this verse.

The promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit to teach all Truth erects the ‘structure’.

I would guess that John 16;13 is what you have in mind here.

Again, somehow I have to make a leap from “He will guide you into all truth” to “impossible to err when teaching on faith and morals” since the two phrases do not have equivalent meaning.

To do that I would have to believe that this is a process that we can not resist on our end. I don’t see what I have to assume this. Why can’t guiding us into all truth be something that the Holy Spirit is doing but also something that we can get wrong.

Besides, I don’t see why God has to have a favorite church and give y’all benes that He is not giving my church. This is something that I just don’t see God doing. Sorry.

And, the delivery of the Spirit on Penetcost Sunday, empowering the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations puts the ‘roof’ firmly in place.

Ah this is likely Acts 2:1-4. Now I observe that a Pentecostal/Charismatic type that this passage is one of ours.

Anyway, I don’t see anything about it being impossible for the pope to be in error when teaching on faith and morals in this passage either. But who knows, maybe it is me. Maybe tomorrow I will get it.

Hey this is fun. You provide me the Scriptures and I study them. I can do that. Get’s me into God’s Word. That is a good thing.

But again, I have limited time. And this evening I have had connection issues anyway with my stupid satellite. I do not have time to respond to a gazillion responses to me to try to convert me from the error of my ways. And I am going to go downstairs to watch the Red Sox anyway. And as much as I enjoy the challenge that this setting provides, sometimes I need a break from it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NotTooSmart,

I am not asking you to rush. In fact, prayerfully taking your time is exactly what you need to be doing prior to opening the Word of God for study and contemplation.

Since you ask, I see absolutely nothing in Scripture to support anybody “incapable of being incorrect” in any given setting, much less your pope.

I have absolutely no interest in trying to convert you from “the error of your ways” and convert you to my way of thinking. If I were, my approach in this thread would be totally different.

As I have said, I do not adhere to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine anyway. I honestly do not think it is necessary for me to do so. All that is really necessary for me is to hold fast to the one source that I know is the infallible and inerrant Word of God and to test all competing claims of authority before I buy into them.

But what I will do, is to go back through this thread to the Scripture verses cited and tell you the leaps that I would have to make that I don’t think I can make in order to buy into your interpretation. This is a part of testing the claims that you make.

This will take a little time (that I may or may not have) but if you want I will do this.

Now I don’t expect this will persuade you. It is probably because I am NotTooSmart that I can’t seem to make the leaps in Scripture that you seem to make with ease… But it is what it is.

You are not being asked to make any heroic ‘leaps’. Honest. If you do not have the time to respond, then just back off for a time until you can really devote the necessary attention to doing this right - not just doing it. Ultimately, any activity will be between you and your open heart and the Grace of the Holy Spirit to empower you with the Word of God.

Most of the Protestants I have met on this list begin with a near-hatred of anything Catholic and progress with arguments that honestly fail in one of three major areas:

1- Not being knowledgeable of secular history from about 500BC - 500AD.

2- Not appreciating the role and transition of the Church from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers. For example, all of the ECF acknowledged the need for Baptism (and immersion was not the only form allowed) the Real Presence, that priests took the place of Christ in forgiving the sins of men, and the authority of the Church as represented in its authoritive and visible leader: the Pope.

3- Not being aware that the spread of Christ’s Word was oral and physical (Apostolic Tradition) before it was all put together and identified by the CC as inerrant. Prior to this, thre were other texts, some pious some decitful and some inspired. Some source of authority outside of the Bible had to make a decision as to which books were the inspired Word of God - the Bible could not do that for itself.

Whatever sources you use to guide your study, These three elements must somehow be addressed. I would recommend that you expand your search of material - no scholar only uses one source, eh? Try this link: catholic.com/magazines/thisrock.asp then go to “Quick Search” in the upper left section and just type in the word you want to search, “Infallibility”, “Sola Scriptura”, “Real Presence”, “Queenship of Mary” - you name it, you can find out about it. This will really take time. But, when you stop and think about it, you have the rest of life to find out the Truth. But, since none of us are guaranteed our next breath … don’t forget about it.

God bless

 

[Peter_J]

I have absolutely no interest in trying to convert you from “the error of your ways” and convert you to my way of thinking. If I were, my approach in this thread would be totally different.

I’m glad to hear because, truth be told, I find your posts to be a very nice addition to these discussions, and I’d hate to see you take an approach that would make you persona non grata around here.

 

[Peter_J]

And this would be Matthew 16:18. Somehow I have to leap from “the gates of Hell will not overpower it” to “Impossible to err when teaching on faith and morals”

“Impossible to err when teaching on faith and morals”? Good heavens man, your copy of Pastor aeternus must have holes in it. Please read this and note especially the underlined portion:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

-Pastor aeternus

 

[NotTooSmart]

“Impossible to err when teaching on faith and morals”? Good heavens man, your copy of Pastor aeternus must have holes in it. Please read this and note especially the underlined portion:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

-Pastor aeternus

D’oh I knew that. Sometimes I go shorthand.

(Red Sox are in rain delay)

 

[Peter_J]

OXFORD, England – A rich and colourful language that has developed over many centuries and which is now spoken by half the planet has a new word – Doh!

 

[JonNC]

Originally posted by bMAC93:
if this is not what it is than what is it?

Hi, JohnNC,
This is where I am getting confused. Doesn’t Soal Scriptura mean “Only Scripture”

Just what kind of distinction are you making?

If there is a ‘theory’ and a ‘practice’ element in SS - what are they.

Remember, the purpose is clear communications - so being cryptic or vague is just not helpful.

Thanks

God bless

Sorry Guys,
I missed these. I’m a school teacher and quite suddenly got busy this past week.
Not trying to be vague. The OP used what I believe to be a flawed application of SS, that:

Since you use only the Bible in forming your doctrine and no traditions of men, please answer the following question with Bible verses only. No arguments. No polemics. No explaining what this or that verse “actually means” or what conclusion we ought to derive from it. Let your answer be only in the form of relevant Bible verses. And then the rest of us can see for ourselves whether the Bible alone supports the “Bible alone” position.

Were this the case, the Lutheran Confessions would not even exist, let alone start with the 3 ecumenical creeds. Lutherans would not accept, generally, the early councils.
How scripture is alone is as the final norm, not as an eliminator of Tradition, or theology, or, as the OP attempts, discussion outside quoting verses.

That is what prompted my short response. Hope this one is clearer.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Exactly. Now, which doctrines of the Catholic Church do you feel are not supported by Scripture …

For me, Mickey, perhaps many of the things that you feel, as an Orthodox Christian:

1. papal infallibility
2. universal jurisdiction
3. transubstantiation
4. purgatory

Jon

 

[happilycatholic]

Since you ask, I see absolutely nothing in Scripture to support anybody “incapable of being incorrect” in any given setting, much less your pope.

NTS:

I have just an observation, if Christ gave Peter and the rest of the Apostles the power to “bind and loose” and whatsoever they bound and loosed would be so in Heaven, how do you suppose that would end up in Heaven should they be wrong?

Wouldn’t they need to be infallible if only in their interpretation of Scripture and forgiveness of sins?

 

[JonNC]

NTS:

I have just an observation, if Christ gave Peter and the rest of the Apostles the power to “bind and loose” and whatsoever they bound and loosed would be so in Heaven, how do you suppose that would end up in Heaven should they be wrong?

Wouldn’t they need to be infallible if only in their interpretation of Scripture and forgiveness of sins?

Hi hc,
Would it be safe to say that God has a kind of veto power, as it were, to either protect the sinner whose sins are mistakenly bound, or condemn the sinner whose inward lack of contrition is sufficiently covered or masked from the Pastor/Priest?Confessor?

Jon

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi hc,
Would it be safe to say that God has a kind of veto power, as it were, to either protect the sinner whose sins are mistakenly bound, or condemn the sinner whose inward lack of contrition is sufficiently covered or masked from the Pastor/Priest?Confessor?

Jon

Hi Jon:

Well there might be a need for that if:

a. There was a time when God actually *relinquished *His power to man, but that’s not the case in Reconciliation. The Sacrament of Reconciliation flows through man but is a gift from God.

or b. If there was a time when the sins of man were left in the hands of man without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that’s not the case in Reconciliation because again it’s a Sacrament.

Absolution is not merely an act that can be mistakenly performed in one regard or another.

Absolution requires contrition so if there is no contrition there will be no absolution no matter what the Priest or the pentitent says or does. There can be so sins mistakenly forgiven nor bound to the pentitent.

There’s no need for veto power because there is no time when God relinquishes His powers of Grace.

Edit:

One last thing, since God is eternal and we are not, God has already forgiven us for our sins when we ask. So His Will is done no matter what. Hence the whole what is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven and so on with the loosing too.

 

[Radical]

NTS:

I have just an observation, if Christ gave Peter and the rest of the Apostles the power to “bind and loose” and whatsoever they bound and loosed would be so in Heaven, how do you suppose that would end up in Heaven should they be wrong?

Wouldn’t they need to be infallible if only in their interpretation of Scripture and forgiveness of sins?

happilycatholic, I guess you are saying that they would need to be infallible in their interpretation of scripture wrt sin and forgiveness so that whatever they locked or released would be in accordance with God’s will.

If such is your logic, then:

a) I note that, Jesus, on quite a few occasions promised that what we ask for will be given to us…wouldn’t that mean (by your logic) that we would all need infallibility in our interpretation of scripture et al wrt what is God’s will and plan for us?.. otherwise we would be forcing God’s hand to do something outside of his will;

b) if you are going to say that we get what we ask for only when it is w/i God’s will (even though a number of the texts do not give that qualification), then you could make the same qualification wrt locking and unlocking so as to eliminate the need for infallibility

c) the locking and unloosing isn’t done (from what I’ve seen) only by the magisterium so if it requires infallibility, then it seems infallibility would be quite common (this, of course would be in line with saying we all possess infallibility so that we will ask for just the right things)…but nobody seems to think infallibility is that common

d) finally, it doesn’t seem to me that the binding and unlocking authority of Matt 18 was given only to the apostles…so again, if it requires infallibility it seems that infallibility would be fairly common and not exclusive to the magisterium.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon:

Well there might be a need for that if:

a. There was a time when God actually *relinquished *His power to man, but that’s not the case in Reconciliation. The Sacrament of Reconciliation flows through man but is a gift from God.

or b. If there was a time when the sins of man were left in the hands of man without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but that’s not the case in Reconciliation because again it’s a Sacrament.

Absolution is not merely an act that can be mistakenly performed in one regard or another.

Absolution requires contrition so if there is no contrition there will be no absolution no matter what the Priest or the pentitent says or does. There can be so sins mistakenly forgiven nor bound to the pentitent.

There’s no need for veto power because there is no time when God relinquishes His powers of Grace.

Edit:

One last thing, since God is eternal and we are not, God has already forgiven us for our sins when we ask. So His Will is done no matter what. Hence the whole what is bound on earth will be bound in Heaven and so on with the loosing too.

Hi hc,
That’s what I thought you’d say, and it is pretty much what a Lutheran might say as well. Sometimes Catholics (and others, frankly) put such a strong emphasis on the Church and the keys, so I like to ask rather than assume.
Thanks,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi hc,
That’s what I thought you’d say, and it is pretty much what a Lutheran might say as well. Sometimes Catholics (and others, frankly) put such a strong emphasis on the Church and the keys, so I like to ask rather than assume.
Thanks,
Jon

So as not to be misunderstood, I put a strong emphasis on the Church, too. Nothing wrong with that.
Jon

 

[NotTooSmart]

NTS:

I have just an observation, if Christ gave Peter and the rest of the Apostles the power to “bind and loose” and whatsoever they bound and loosed would be so in Heaven, how do you suppose that would end up in Heaven should they be wrong?

Wouldn’t they need to be infallible if only in their interpretation of Scripture and forgiveness of sins?

See the comment or “Radical”…they are quite good.

Anyway, you are leaping from “whatever you bind and loose on earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven” to “the Bishop of Rome being incapable of being incorrect (etc etc see above”. That is a huge leap in meaning between the two phrases.

Now of course the leap to you makes perfect sense, but to someone line me I do see simpler explanations.

Like “If whatever you ask in my name that will I do” is ultimately subject to the will of God, then "whatever you bind and loose (whatever that means) is also ultimately subject to the will of God.

And of course all of Catholic theology on this and other points ultimately depends upon the “this rock” of Matthew 16 being Peter and Christ building his church on Peter and not an alternative explanation. Now I am not going to say your are wrong on this, because for all I know you might be right (and I have not eliminated in my mind the possibility that you are right). But…

I have observed that the various debates on this topics ultimately turn on the meaning of greek words (like petros, petra and maybe other ones). The problem…I don’t know greek and have no way to verify either point if view.

So were I to adopt your viewpoint, I would be building my whole doctrinal system with a whole number of doctrines upon the meaning of greek that I am taking somebody elses say so on. That would seem to me to be to be a violation of 1 Thess. 5:21.

Furthermore all of Catholic theology on this and other points ultimately depends upon the doctrine of Apostolic successions. I have observed that the entire doctrine Scripturally rests upon Matthias replacing Judas prior to Pentecost and the dawning of the church age. Now what I do not know is that if Judas had not betrayed Jesus and he had had died a few years after Pentecost, whether this same event would have happened. There is no Scriptural record that it did with the other apostles that died. Now that does not mean that it did not happen, but just that I can not verify this through Scripture.

But my fundamental problem here is that you are taking an instance of something (an event in Acts 1) and building a doctrine upon it. It seems to me that this is a very sketchy practice if consistently applied to Scripture. This is the logic that the Word of faith movement with their faith healers and the snake handlers in Jolo West Virginia use to justify their hmmm interesting practices. So I just can’t do that.

 

[happilycatholic]

See the comment or “Radical”…they are quite good.

Anyway, you are leaping from “whatever you bind and loose on earth shall be bound and loosed in heaven” to “the Bishop of Rome being incapable of being incorrect (etc etc see above”. That is a huge leap in meaning between the two phrases.

 

[happilycatholic]

Hi hc,
That’s what I thought you’d say, and it is pretty much what a Lutheran might say as well. Sometimes Catholics (and others, frankly) put such a strong emphasis on the Church and the keys, so I like to ask rather than assume.
Thanks,
Jon

Jon, I appreciate this. But…

Catholics see the "(C)hurch as the Ministry of Christ. So yes, we do put alot of emphasis on the Church. The Church to us is not just the Magisterium. It is God’s Will, His Work, His Message, etc.

I know our references to The Church sometimes makes people cringe, but it’s not just an authority, it is our Shepard.

To catholics, the Church is a culmination of Christ’s work on earth. So when we say “The Church” we are saying so much more than “my momma said”

Peace.

HC

 

[Radical]

First of all, let’s get a clear understanding of infallibility. The Holy Father is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, that is from the Chair of Peter and only in matters of *faith and morals. *

well, let us also be clear that the CC claims that its official teaching is w/o error, and that therefore, the councils, the magisterium and the Pope must all be infallible when they are teaching “officially”. The problem is that we don’t have an infallible list of those infallible proclamations…I believe the Pope has only twice declared “I speaking ex cathedra now”, but the official teachings of the CC go well beyond what the Pope declared on those occasions.

Now, that being said, where is the leap? Can you imagine Christ leaving His Ministry to be passed on in whatever manner the Apostles saw fit?

No I can’t…I can imagine the apostles passing on Christ’s message by repeating his teachings and by providing the gospels and epistles in written form to preserve those teachings and I can even imagine the apostles teaching a great deal that isn’t recorded in the NT…I can’t imagine that the ECFs (either collectively or individually) possessed infallibility in their ruminations and expansions on what the apostles taught…as such, when these additions gained acceptance the church was possessed of fallible opinions in addition to the infallible teachings of Christ which were faithfully passed on. Fortunately we can still reference the actual teachings of the apostles in the NT

That would mean they could start preaching whatever form of Christianity they wanted to.

and that is exactly what we see in the first century after Christ…it is what Paul warns about. It seems that man just can’t resist adding his interpretation and opinion to revelation.

Kind of like Protestantism today (sorry, no disrespect inteded, I’m just saying).

none taken…where Protestantism has the capacity of being superior to Catholicism is in the Protestants’ ability to realize that mistakes are made by the church and that, at this time, we only “see a dim likeness of things” (1 Cor 13:12). The focus of Catholics here seems to be to stress the alleged 30k denominations of Protestantism and to totally ignore the considerable unity and brotherhood that exists accross the various denominations…where that unity is often hardest to find, is exactly where Protestants claim a “Catholic type” infallibility for their official teaching.

There can only be one correct interpretation of Scripture, not thousands.

show me any passage that has a thousand interpretations by the various Protestants out there…also, you are incorrect with the “only one” bit…In Galations 4: 21-31 Paul gives a metaphorical interpretation to a historical passage.

That just doesn’t make sense. If you think taking a chance on a Pope, who has intimate knowledge of Christ’s teaching and an exquisite education in theism and years of seminary (I could go on) is worse than following a well-meaning pastor in a church is better, then by all means, do that.

I believe that NotTooSmart and I will do exactly that and for me, it is b/c my pastor (and those learned other fellows that I enjoy listening to, RCs included) are not committed to following the official teachings of a church no matter what. They are free to go where history, scripture and the Holy Spirit lead.

I believe there should be one shepard and one way. That shepard should lead his flock in that way. That is what Christ taught and what He practiced when He was here and I have no reason to believe He wanted that to change.

I agree, but I see the one way as sticking to the teaching of the apostles w/o additions and novelties being thrown into the mix…that leaves me with returning to the NT and rejecting (as infallible) the tradition of the CC

I’m not clear on why you are making a connection between what we pray for and infalliblity. I don’t understand your point on this. Maybe you could explain.

If the power to bind and loose is absolute, and if infallibility is required for deciding what to bind and what to loose so as to avoid going against the will of God, then likewise, if God will give us whatever we ask for (as he promised) then infallibility is required for deciding what to ask for so as to avoid going against the will of God.

I’m going to have to stop here and get ready for Church.

now its my turn.

God Bless.