J
JMJ_coder
Guest
It is not Scripture that is inconsistent, but the private interpretations of Protestants - each one has their own unique take on things.
What about this do you find unclear or inconsistent?
- Status
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Given that scripture was selected using Sacred Tradition based on the judgment of the magisterium, you argument falls flat.
What is scripture and who told you?
A
A_Sinner_1
Guest
Craig Kennedy wrote:
Thus, as to the argument for inspiration of the Books of the Bible, we are left only with your own opinion of their “nature and character.”
An eloquent statement that might be convincing to people (unfortunately including a large number of Catholics) who don’t realize that the Scripture was canonized by the very Church councils you dismiss.
Thus, as to the argument for inspiration of the Books of the Bible, we are left only with your own opinion of their “nature and character.”
T
tGette
Guest
What is ironic is what comes right after Romans 15:4:
Romans 15:5-6:
“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This little prayer by Saint Paul is not answered in the various interpretations of Sola Scriptura and the various interpretations it brings forth.
What is not clear or consistent with Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium???
I will address John 20:31 since it is the only attempt so far I have seen from anyone trying to answer this question with Scripture. Thank you for that!
**
John 20:31**
“But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.”
Was this referring to the Letters of Saint Paul too? Or just the Gospel of John. Did John have Paul in mind when writing this? (I am sure you might say, no, but God had Paul in mind when John was writing this…fair enough.)
Does this mean then that we do not need to know anything else about Christianity? That Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, is this all a Christian must concern themselves with?
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Just a minor correction here. Martin Luther was German, and translated a Bible into German, inserting “alone” into Romans 3:28 where he thought it should go, boldly admitting that it was found in none of the manuscripts he used. He really, *really *wanted to remove that “epistle of straw” James, and found Revelation less than inspiring, too, but in the end, at the urging of his friends, those books remained.
He had nothing to do with the KJV, which is an English translation of the Scriptures. Luther had been dead for about 60 years when the KJV was printed.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Yup, Luther had pressure on him. Even with that pressure he still threw away seven books. Who knows, if he had his way, the Bible might have been reduced to a Chick tract.
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Hi brother Lief,Craig, did my answer to your question about why the Church hasn’t made a massive infallible commentary on the Bible make sense to you, in view of Jesus’ words in the Gospels, the Magesterium’s authority in Acts, and the development of the Old Testament over time?
That was a limited question you asked, but it was a barrier between you and the Church, so I hope you understand and accept the explanation, even though you still believe in Luther’s Sola Scriptura.
Please ponder this too, my friend. While the scripture repeatedly affirms that “scripture” is of great value for the soul, should be dwelt on and cannot be broken, only one of the books of the New Testament declares itself to be scripture: The Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19). None of the other books of the New Testament – and I don’t know of any from the Old Testament that do this either – claim to be the infallible, inerrant Word of God.
They make statements about the value of the Word of God and the books of the scripture, but never say which books belong in scripture.
Therefore your belief in the scripture is not the result of its own internal testimony. For there is no list of the true books of the scripture in the scripture itself. So your belief that these are the right books that should be in the Bible comes from the Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” from the Early Church councils that selected the canon (Hippo, Carthage and Rome), not from the scripture.
Great!
I am blessed by what you write and I am impressed with your desire to honour Christ.
My belief in the authority of scripture is only a part of the total effect of the Spirit’s witness in me. The Spirit’s testimony within me, however, has wrought a confidence in the authority of scripture which can never be divorced from faith in the gospel. Do you understand?
I am certain that God Has wrought true saving faith in me and this saving faith is grounded in the testimony of the scriptures themselves.
Scripture has an inherent objective meaning and this meaning is communicated by the Spirit Himself, not through the church or the Magisterium. Please be open to what I am saying here.
The scriptures themselves witness to a believer that he/she is a child of God. Please read and study 1 John 5:6; Romans 1:16; John 6:63; 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13. If this is so - and I hope you will consider this - then it is apparent that the power of scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit rule out any necessity for a Magisterium.
The postulation of a Magisterium and Sacred Tradition alongside scripture would destroy scripture’s testimony about themselves in the heart of a devout believer.
May God bless you, In Christ Craig
B
benedictus2
Guest
Okay, if Sola Scriptura is enough, then tell me: On the issue alone of infant baptism: Lutherans believe infants should be baptised but Calvinists (say Presbyterians) believe other wise.
Both are reading from the same Bible but come to contrasting conclusions.
If they were both guided by the Spirit then the Holy Spirit is mighty confused and don’t really know the answer either.
If only one of them was guided by the Spirit which is a more rationial conclusion, which one of them is right?
B
benedictus2
Guest
What does this mean then
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15
You cannot prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible because that is circular reasoning.
And whether you remain convinced that Sola Scriptura is the truth is beside the point. You have to prove that it is the truth. You have not done that.
If I were to claim that I am the queen of England I must be able to prove it.
So, eagerly awaiting the undisputable proof from you.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
If everything that we need to know as Christians is in the Bible, then where in the Bible does it give us the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? How do we know all of those books are supposed to be in the Bible if there is no list in the Bible?
Moreover, what did a Christian read (if they could even read) in, say 45AD? Do you know how very expensive and time consuming it was to copy a complete Bible when it was finally canonized (by the Catholic Church) in the 5th century? Would you be able to set aside a full year’s wages to buy yourself a Bible?
Christians heard the Scriptures read when they went to Church, they learned everything they needed to know about Christ from the Church, and I daresay they were much better at committing Scripture to memory than we are today, and they didn’t even have chapter and verse numbers!
2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Acts 8:27-31 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace (queen) of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
An educated, intelligent Ethiopian Jew, Secretary of the Treasury for the queen, needs guidance to understand Scripture. Why should we think we’re any better?
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Craig Kennedy;4331730:
It is simply God’s ultimate and supreme revelation of His mind, character and will.The burden of proof and evidence also lies with you - namely to prove that:
The point of this discussion is the truth. I remain convinced, on this issue, that sola scriptura is the truth. This truth did not originate with Martin Luther; it is as old as the apostolic church.
onenow1, could you point to the originator of scripture alone or SS? It would be helpful .
peace, one now1
God willed and planned it this way.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
My friend, please dont take offense at the battle of the principalities that keep you seperated from the body of Jesus Christ. Every thing you state from scripture; Catholic’s hold dear also to our hearts. Where error enters is when you attach “Sola” to it. You know very well scripture does not attatch “Sola” to “Scriptura”. Drop the man made Sola to scriptura and you will find yourself closer to the body of Jesus Christ ever before. Hold to this man made tradition and remain seperated from the Church Jesus built upon Peter. Here is Scriptural proof that Jesus left a teaching authority on earth in Peter with the keys of the kingdom of God on earth excercised with unbroken succession from Peter through the Catholic Popes; Mathew 16:16-19, John 21:15-17. See also Encyclopedia Brittanica under Papacy for a neutral source naming every Pope successor of Peter since Jesus.
Sola Scriptura limits God in his saving grace and mercy. For one the first century Christians had no new testament yet, only the Oral Traditional teachings of the apostles. Secondly how do save a child who cannot read yet? or a mental paitient who cannot read with “Sola Scriptura”? if you name something other, then you immediately discredit “Sola Scriptura”? Sola Scriptura limits the power of God, that is why it is never taught or believed by the Church Jesus founded since the first century.
Do you need more scriptural proof that disproves “Sola Scriptura”
Because Jesus taught you must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God; not Sola Scriptura? You must repent and be baptised, not Sola Scriptura? You must “eat my body, drink my blood” in order to have eternal life says Jesus (John 6). Do I really need to go on? Sola Scriptura does not gain anyone salvation, “Sola Christi” Salva!
O
onenow1
Guest
onenow1;4331791:
onenow1, So this is truth of the Holy Spirit, below.
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, ‘once saved always saved’, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
Peace, onenow1
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
The meaning of scripture is one. It is not many meanings. Scripture, itself, objectively speaking is the authoritative voice of God giving doctrinal teaching in propositional form.Okay, if Sola Scriptura is enough, then tell me: On the issue alone of infant baptism: Lutherans believe infants should be baptised but Calvinists (say Presbyterians) believe other wise.
Both are reading from the same Bible but come to contrasting conclusions.
If they were both guided by the Spirit then the Holy Spirit is mighty confused and don’t really know the answer either.
If only one of them was guided by the Spirit which is a more rationial conclusion, which one of them is right?
The fact there are many interpretations does not overthrow the sola scriptura principle.
Sola scriptura insists that God’s supreme written word must be interpreted according to proper rules of exegesis.
I’ll let you work the rest of it out for yourself.
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
I have no proof from your side.What does this mean then
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15
You cannot prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible because that is circular reasoning.
And whether you remain convinced that Sola Scriptura is the truth is beside the point. You have to prove that it is the truth. You have not done that.
If I were to claim that I am the queen of England I must be able to prove it.
So, eagerly awaiting the undisputable proof from you.
The other issues you have raised have been abundantly covered in previous posts.
Although, I am happy to respond to questions I cannot simply go over and over again what I have already presented. You must read posts in the context of this whole thread.
I have a limited amount of time. I have work committments. I refuse to be sucked into arguments that have been generously dealt with earlier.
I am keen, though, to continue this discussion while ADVANCING this discussion. I am sure others will agree with me.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Dear Craig, you believe in such a blending of glorious truth and horrible falsehood! Reading post 1122 gave me so many ups and downs- where you affirm the glory of God’s writings, great ups, but where you diminish the authority of sacred means through which He reveals truth, I found myself wincing. You have a precious faith, but you tragically have been for many, many years in a tradition that steals from the fullness of the glory of God that is revealed in the Scripture and has been believed in throughout the history of Christianity up to the Reformation’s traditions of men.
The traditions of men have biased whole generations of Protestant children and converts against obvious meanings of the Scripture itself regarding Tradition, the Papacy and the Magesterium. There is nothing in the Bible that says “Scripture alone.” On the other hand, there are many places in the Bible that affirm Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2), the Magesterium (Acts 15:28-29, 1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:25-26, 16:13, Ephesians 2:20, 3:5) and the Papacy- I’ve already shown you many scriptures referring to the Papacy. Please believe.
Here’s an interesting point about Sola Scriptura’s emphasis on the interpretive authority of each individual: Through Sola Scriptura, every Christian is encouraged to come up with personal “traditions of men,” human interpretations of God’s Word that are clearly human from the fact that great numbers of them contradict one another. And there is no authority within Protestantism to distinguish the right Scripture interpretation from the wrong. Christians are left in ignorance and error, and in the knowledge that this is their condition. My Protestant grandmother once tried to explain to me how errors occur in Protestantism. She said (roughly), “You know the old story of the blind men touching an elephant? One man touches the leg, another the belly, another the ear, another the trunk, and another the tusk, and while they’re all right about the piece they have, they come to different conclusions about what the elephant looks like.” That was her defense and explanation for the inconsistencies in Protestantism. My answer was simple, “In Catholicism, praise be to God, the eyes of the blind men are opened so that we can see the whole elephant.”
While trying to escape “traditions of men,” Protestantism lands itself in a gigantic mess of them. But God is light. And the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth,” not confusion and error. And the Church is one, not over 30,000. Please open your eyes to the clear differences between the awful troubles in the spirit of Sola Scriptura and the glory of the unity of Church and clarity of the Truth in the Catholic Kingdom of God.
When I was Protestant, I didn’t believe anyone’s interpretation of Scripture was the supreme standard of truth, because people can make mistakes. While the Scripture is infallible, it’s always interpreted through your own fallibility, so the standard doesn’t reach you in its original form. And because you make yourself into your own personal final authority in judging the Scripture’s meaning, the Scripture itself is not your final authority. For it doesn’t reveal its own meaning to you- you interpret its meaning for yourself. Therefore in your life, Scripture is not the final authority, much though you’d like it to be. Instead, YOU are your final authority and “supreme standard of truth.”
Imagine a king (representing scripture) who is incapable of error and is the supreme standard of truth. He stands behind a screen and speaks to a messenger (he represents your mind, for all you read is transmitted through your mind), and the messenger relays the message to the rest of the people to believe and obey (your will, beliefs and actions). The messenger is a commoner from the streets who isn’t accustomed to court language, so he often passes the messages on with varying degrees of error. Some of the errors are small, some are huge. But the people outside the palace find themselves relying on this messenger for all their knowledge of the will of the king.
This is the situation for each Protestant.
Scripture is always interpreted by its reader. Therefore Scripture ITSELF never is the “supreme standard of truth” in Protestantism. Rather, each individual’s private interpretation of the Scripture represents the “supreme standard of truth.” So there IS NO supreme standard of truth in Protestantism! There might be in a theoretical sense, but not in a practical sense.
For instance, while in theory the king behind the screen is completely right all the time, you are not hearing him directly (by which I mean the infallible meaning God had for any particular passage) but the messenger, your own brain, “human traditions.” So you rely EXCLUSIVELY on human tradition about the Scripture, when you think you are relying on “Scripture Alone.” There is no Scripture Alone. Sola Scriptura is Human Traditions Alone. It is My Own Fallible Private Interpretation of Scripture, Alone. It therefore has no supreme standard.
. . . If Protestants have a supreme standard, that standard is the messenger, not the king.
The traditions of men have biased whole generations of Protestant children and converts against obvious meanings of the Scripture itself regarding Tradition, the Papacy and the Magesterium. There is nothing in the Bible that says “Scripture alone.” On the other hand, there are many places in the Bible that affirm Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 2:2), the Magesterium (Acts 15:28-29, 1 Timothy 3:15, John 14:25-26, 16:13, Ephesians 2:20, 3:5) and the Papacy- I’ve already shown you many scriptures referring to the Papacy. Please believe.
Here’s an interesting point about Sola Scriptura’s emphasis on the interpretive authority of each individual: Through Sola Scriptura, every Christian is encouraged to come up with personal “traditions of men,” human interpretations of God’s Word that are clearly human from the fact that great numbers of them contradict one another. And there is no authority within Protestantism to distinguish the right Scripture interpretation from the wrong. Christians are left in ignorance and error, and in the knowledge that this is their condition. My Protestant grandmother once tried to explain to me how errors occur in Protestantism. She said (roughly), “You know the old story of the blind men touching an elephant? One man touches the leg, another the belly, another the ear, another the trunk, and another the tusk, and while they’re all right about the piece they have, they come to different conclusions about what the elephant looks like.” That was her defense and explanation for the inconsistencies in Protestantism. My answer was simple, “In Catholicism, praise be to God, the eyes of the blind men are opened so that we can see the whole elephant.”
While trying to escape “traditions of men,” Protestantism lands itself in a gigantic mess of them. But God is light. And the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth,” not confusion and error. And the Church is one, not over 30,000. Please open your eyes to the clear differences between the awful troubles in the spirit of Sola Scriptura and the glory of the unity of Church and clarity of the Truth in the Catholic Kingdom of God.
When you say, “Scripture is the supreme standard of truth,” do you mean, “my interpretation of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme standard of truth”? If that isn’t what you mean, then whose interpretation of Scripture is the “supreme standard of truth?”
When I was Protestant, I didn’t believe anyone’s interpretation of Scripture was the supreme standard of truth, because people can make mistakes. While the Scripture is infallible, it’s always interpreted through your own fallibility, so the standard doesn’t reach you in its original form. And because you make yourself into your own personal final authority in judging the Scripture’s meaning, the Scripture itself is not your final authority. For it doesn’t reveal its own meaning to you- you interpret its meaning for yourself. Therefore in your life, Scripture is not the final authority, much though you’d like it to be. Instead, YOU are your final authority and “supreme standard of truth.”
Imagine a king (representing scripture) who is incapable of error and is the supreme standard of truth. He stands behind a screen and speaks to a messenger (he represents your mind, for all you read is transmitted through your mind), and the messenger relays the message to the rest of the people to believe and obey (your will, beliefs and actions). The messenger is a commoner from the streets who isn’t accustomed to court language, so he often passes the messages on with varying degrees of error. Some of the errors are small, some are huge. But the people outside the palace find themselves relying on this messenger for all their knowledge of the will of the king.
This is the situation for each Protestant.
Scripture is always interpreted by its reader. Therefore Scripture ITSELF never is the “supreme standard of truth” in Protestantism. Rather, each individual’s private interpretation of the Scripture represents the “supreme standard of truth.” So there IS NO supreme standard of truth in Protestantism! There might be in a theoretical sense, but not in a practical sense.
For instance, while in theory the king behind the screen is completely right all the time, you are not hearing him directly (by which I mean the infallible meaning God had for any particular passage) but the messenger, your own brain, “human traditions.” So you rely EXCLUSIVELY on human tradition about the Scripture, when you think you are relying on “Scripture Alone.” There is no Scripture Alone. Sola Scriptura is Human Traditions Alone. It is My Own Fallible Private Interpretation of Scripture, Alone. It therefore has no supreme standard.
. . . If Protestants have a supreme standard, that standard is the messenger, not the king.
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Sola scriptura does not hold that God gave an EXHAUSTIVE REVELATION.
It only insists that what God did choose to reveal was inerrant and the SUPREME STANDARD OF TRUTH.
O
onenow1
Guest
The meaning of scripture is one. It is not many meanings. Scripture, itself, objectively speaking is the authoritative voice of God giving doctrinal teaching in propositional form.
The fact there are many interpretations does not overthrow the sola scriptura principle.
onenow1, Truly what is the sola scriptura principle ? Above you say it is not many meanings yet you say many meanings do not overthrow SS.
Peace onenow1 coffee:
C
Craig_Kennedy
Guest
Craig Kennedy;4332014:
I see what you are getting at but the confusion brought about by all these conflicting opinions is not the fault of sola scriptura - it is the fault of incorrect exegesis, human pride and sin and secularismonenow1, So this is truth of the Holy Spirit, below.
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, ‘once saved always saved’, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
Peace, onenow1
O
onenow1
Guest
onenow1;4332045:
onenow1, Then the ? must be asked who has rhe proper exegesis ? And by what authority ?
Peace, onenow1
PS Have to stay awake.
- Status