S
sola_scriptura
Guest
NO – GOD is my authority. Your look to the traditions of men! God alone, grace alone, His word alone – good enough for me but apparently not you.
- Status
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
YOU are your own authority.
You have faith in your own understanding, nothing more.
L
Lampo
Guest
You also look to the Catholic Church as your authority if you believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
L
Lampo
Guest
Is this what you mean?
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Actually God is the final authority – but yes Jesus left Peter in the role of final decision maker on doctrinal issues. That role ended when the romans crucified him upside down. When I think of all the Popes who have committed such atrocities, to equate them with Peter is just disturbing (and I’m trying my best to be kind).
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Not so much his fallacious notion of apostolic succession, although that is one point of contention. He is the one who began concocting Mariology.
It wasn’t even a major slip up – he merely pointed out that where Eve disobeyed Mary obeyed. However, it was the beginning of the slippery slope (or I should say one of the many slippery slopes).
L
Lampo
Guest
Show me the Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution any of them wrote, that stated that these activities are no longer to be considered sinful, including the phrase, "I declare and define … ".
Otherwise, we have men who are not impeccable (without sin), but who, as near as we can tell, remains infallible (without error in his teaching ministry).
L
Lampo
Guest
According to whom?
T
twb1621
Guest
case closed?
It is obvious that the scripture verses you provide neither support sola scriptura nor denounce or diminish Sacred Tradition while the scripture verses offered here to you and those who believe as you do not only support that tradition, but plainly instruct the continued teaching in it.
O
onenow1
Guest
=onenow1Peter has actually made a pretty profound statement here. He understood he was not worthy. Some of the worst Popes did not undestand this, but they were protected by the H. S.
Peace, onenow1
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Hey – I can’t control what you think; but I can know you’re wrong, and you are.
L
Lampo
Guest
Those verses say nothing about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.
There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is “profitable”, it does not say scripture is “all sufficient”; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word “alone” in this passage, as in “scripture alone”.
What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching and correction and so forth. Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But…this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. You are trying to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.
There are more problems with your interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack that holds his ammunition and such. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.
The other problem with this interpretation, is Scripture itself. In James 1:3-4 it says this: “…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” So, we see here in James that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what do we see here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way you interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used in 2 Tim 3:16-17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia - patience alone.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Hmmm let’s see you want me to show you proof from the Catholic Churches own records that they are guilty of something? Boy talk about brain washed?
Let’s say I’m a prosecutor and I want to convict someone of a crime. I have pretty solid evidence against them but they say hey look I have produced documentation showing I’m innocent? Or they say you can’t find an admission of my guilt in any document I ever produced. What should I do?
Should I say OK I believe you, or should I laugh and toss the bum in jail? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say any prosecutor worth his salt is going with option two.
L
Lampo
Guest
What else would you use except your own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture? I was merely pointing out that none of the deplorable Popes taught error in matters of faith and morals.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
great – an actual credible objection. First I do not advocate scripture alone. I adhere to Trinitarian doctrine, nowhere in scripture does it ever use the word Trinity. Most Protestants agree with me here, so obviously you’re misconstruing sola scriptura. It does not ignore tradition – rather it views scripture as more reliable than tradition when there’s a clear conflict. Paul said it’s useful for rebuke and correction, which is all we say as well.
There is one mediator, make no graven images, by grace through faith and not by works so no man can boast, and so forth. There is enough in scripture to refute the soundness of Catholic doctrine.
Again, you’re premising your entire discourse here on an erroneous notion of my view regarding the primacy of scripture.
so what’s your point? Did I ever say Christians should be impatient? Did I ever say we should be anything but steadfast?
That’s a silly argument – classical red herring.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
It is one of many reasons why people convert, speaking from personal experience
. It is visible proof of the subjectivism inherent in the Sola Scriptura approach. For if the meanings of the scriptures were all “obvious” from scripture alone, without either Tradition or Magesterium, Protestants wouldn’t come into enormous disagreements over their meaning. For there are many extremely sincere people in all Protestant denominations, and the non-denominationals too are usually very sincere. They’re just mistaken in the way they see many Biblical things.The vastly more simple explanation is that many sincere Christians read the same document, interpret it differently (even as you and I do right now), and thus come to different conclusions. And then their different conclusions on important matters cause friction between them, so they join denominations that agree with them.
I agree that sin and materialism are connected. Most of it is human error, though- the simple fact that lots of people can read the same document and will form different conclusions. I’ve encountered that in college classes all the time, when the class reads a document. They read it and then a debate forms over it because not everyone interprets it the same way. I’ve seen the same thing loads of times in scripture analysis.
That, I’m afraid, has been disproven by history. Protestants have always had a very high emphasis on scripture exegesis. That goes straight back to the days of the Reformation and has never died out. Yet even among Bible scholars and experts, there are huge disagreements over matters of the faith within Protestantism. Put one Baptist, one Pentecostal, one Presbyterian, one Anglican and one Lutheran theologian into the same room and set them talking about doctrine, and OUCH. They might be nice to one another, but despite all the immense knowledge of scripture each of them has, they won’t agree. In fact, Protestantism has been splintering steadily into ever smaller and smaller pieces since the very beginning of the Reformation. That is just fact. It’s the history of denominationalism- and the “future” can be seen in non-denominationalism and opposition to all organized religion. That movement is mushrooming in modern society and creates far greater doctrinal diversity amongst Christians.
These are the clear results of subjectivism, Craig. They are the result of people reading the same document with honesty and sincerity, and analyzing it carefully, and interpreting it in different ways.
No document interprets itself. Each is interpreted by its reader- whether literally, symbolically or metaphorically.
The Catholic Church’s centralized authority in Christ through the Magesterium is the source of its unity. The fact that in Protestantism every individual is the final authority on scripture interpretation before Christ is the reason why they scatter.
Remember what Jesus said also, when you look at the Church’s unity vs. Protestantism’s scattering. Jesus said, “Whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30). Most Protestants serve Jesus, and I believe you do too. But they do not gather with the “Body of Christ,” the Church, and they also separate themselves from the Catholic Eucharist, which Catholics believe is our Lord Himself. Therefore they in critically important senses divide themselves from Jesus (usually by accident), and you can see the result worldwide. Unity in the true Church vs. unholy division everywhere in Protestantism where people separate themselves from it.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Actually it does, in more than one passage. An explicit reference is in Acts 15:28-29. The “apostles and elders” of the Church met in a council in Acts 15 to discuss the issue of circumcision and the conversion of the Gentiles. They had their council, made their decision, and then ordered the rest of the Church to adhere to it. They wrote the following instructions to the rest of the Church.
"Acts 15:28-29:
This was the verdict of their council, one that they gave as an order. “To impose upon you,” and they also said this decision had been arrived at by them and the Holy Spirit, which means that the authority of the council was infallible. For the Holy Spirit’s word is certainly infallible, and that is what they said they had. It was them and the Holy Spirit who made the decision, according to them, and it was authoritative, so they gave its decision as an order.
So the infallible role of the Magesterium is written about explicitly and is seen in practice in the Bible itself.
Some Protestants argue that this was the only infallible council, but the scripture is supposed to provide the example for all Christians to follow. The Early Church followed exactly the same practice as is found in Acts 15, submitting to the authority of Church councils and declaring their infallibility, because they submitted to the Scripture’s example too.
It never gives the role of interpreting the scripture as final authority to every individual Christian. That is just not in the Bible, and while you’ve shown me many verses that emphasize the importance the Bible should have in people’s lives, you haven’t shown me any passage that says the scripture is self-authenticating or the final arbiter and standard of doctrine. There is no basis for those beliefs in the Bible- which is why no Christian can be found, historically, who held to them prior to the Reformation.
You are used to making one interpretation, the “self-authentication” interpretation that you have not been able to show to be in the Bible, and which Christians prior to the Reformation had no knowledge of. You are rejecting the scriptural authority of the Pope and the Magesterium and Tradition, all of which are the Early Christians believed in and all of which I have shown you are in the Sacred Scripture. I challenge you to seriously question your assumptions and pray for guidance on this matter. As I did- and the Spirit led me to the Catholic Church.
- Status