Sola Scriptura Is Not God's Plan - An Argument

[loscampos]

OK, but can you tell me what the church is, or what the church would be like…without the Scriptures? ISTM that the pillar of Truth is the Church, and the foundation of the church is the Word of God.

If i try to go the no scripture route, we will just go in circles, but seeing how most of your ideas are scriptural i will just stick to that if that is ok with you. The church is the body of christ Col 1:18. His body is one spirit not many fractured spirits 1 Cor 12:13.

Also the word of christ is also the spoken word 2 Tim 2:2, also 2 Thess 2:13 He emphasizes by word OR mouth. Also as i stated earler the pharasies had the word of God and where educated in it and still did not understand its interpretation.

Also if scripture didnt exist we would still be saved because Jesus instituted baptism before any of the NT books were written. And we have proof from the church fathers that support baptism.

 

[mikeledes]

Every sin is an offense to God and only God can forgive sins. The reason we are told to “confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” is not because human beings have any power to heal or forgive sins, but to be supportive of each other. It is God who heals and forgives, and we need the love and support of our fellow bothers and sisters in Christ. We are branches that need to be connected to the vine.

God oftens heals and forgives through the instrumentality of human beings:

James 5:14-15

**14Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. **

John 20:22-23

**22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Nick_Jones]

Explain the case of Cornelius, who the Bible explicitly states was “baptized with the Spirit” in Acts 10:44.

God Bless,
Michael

I’m not denying that the Holy Spirit was upon all those who heard Peter’s message. And as I’ve said before, this verse doesn’t seem to be saying anything contrary to what I’ve said concerning the absolute necessity of being born of the Spirit to make sinners receptive to the truth.

 

[Nick_Jones]

1. This one is rather simple.
   A. The pillar of Truth is the Church 1 Tim 3: 15

If it really is rather simple, how can you be sure that the pillar of truth is the church?

 

[EJTMJR]

SANDUSKY…

I just read your profile. With all due respect do you really believe God led you out of the Catholic Church?
You are in my prayers.

 

[guanophore]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

This is taken from: lococatolico.com/Essays.html

I would say that the hypothesis is a bad one. There is no reason to set these sources against one another, and this was never done until people decided to remake Christianity in their own image and likeness. Scripture reflects the sacred tradtiion from whence it came, and should not be separated from it.

 

[loscampos]

If it really is rather simple, how can you be sure that the pillar of truth is the church?

Because the church and Jesus are one. He says I am to the churh as husband is to his wife, meaning he and the church are one 1 Cor 11:13. He also says in Eph 5:33 “let each one of you love his wife as himself.” And since the same holds true for Christ, he loves his Church as he loves himself.

Also if you use the bible as your reference the church is clearly the truth, but if you try and “what if you cant use the bible?” then we would still use the writings of the church fathers. Remember no body argues about Aristotle or Plato’s writings. No one second guesses that they are authentic, yet we will question our own bible. If the bible as a book is not authentic, or has no way of being authenticated, then neither do any of the books throughout time.

so my question for you is what is your deeper reason for uderstanding the bible. There are many things explicitedly stated and yet you do not accept. And then you pick and choose what you want that is implied. My purpose for study is the Truth of God and Jesus. First I look for topics that are explicitly stated, then if I cant find it I go for implicit meanings. And the implicit meanings have to follow two criteria, first they have to be taken into context and second they cannot contradict anything else in the bible. Using this i can go through anything in the bible apologetics or not and find the true meanings of scripture.

 

[loscampos]

I would say that the hypothesis is a bad one. There is no reason to set these sources against one another, and this was never done until people decided to remake Christianity in their own image and likeness. Scripture reflects the sacred tradtiion from whence it came, and should not be separated from it.

My goal is not to set them apart, but clearly one has more authority. As i discussed with Nick earlier ( so you can look at that post for the actual scripture references) The church can forgive or not forgive sins, the church can baptise, the church is meant for adjudication between two parties regarding faith, the church is the body of christ and the church is the pillar of Truth. Jesus created a Church that is his own body, the bible is not the body of Christ, the church and its people are. The church is charged also with protecting the interpretation of the bible. Again as i told Nick, the pharaises had the scripture and still didnt know how the son of man was. The can be said for the disciples, when Jesus asked them, Peter know not from man but from God. So even his most devout followers didnt know he was the son of man just by scripture. It makes sense that Jesus created a church to prevent this from happening in the future, that is misinterpreting scripture.

 

[guanophore]

There are a few fatal flaws in this view of yours:

1. Without the Scriptures, how on earth can you, or anyone else, determine which religion and/or which religious teachings are from God?

We received the Teaching on what is true religion from Jesus:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. John 1:14

Jesus, full of grace and truth, established the Church. The Church then reflected her teachings in the New Testament.

1. How is it possible to hold the view that “the church has more authority than the bible,” without viciously insulting God? Without God’s word, “the church” is just a bunch of prideful lost souls inventing whatever doctrines seem useful to maintain control over the masses.

Gosh. This seems so much anti-Catholic hostillity! How did this happen?

No educated Catholic will say that the Church has more authority than the Bible. The properly catechized CAtholic knows that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two inseparable strands of the same Divine Revelation that came from Jesus. These are called the Deposit of Faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3-4

Your perception of the church has been horribly contaminated or wounded, or both. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. She is the pure bride of Christ, and that is why she is without error.

If the canon of Scriptures was given to us by the church, then the church came before the Scriptures, and the church is therefore above the Scriptures.

This is faulty reasoning. The authority given to the Apostles by Jesus was to teach the gospel. They did this in word and in writing. Both are equal in authority. It is true that the Church came before the scriptures, but the scriptures accurately reflect the teaching of the Church.

Did the Jews know what was (OT) Scripture without the magisterium? If so, how did they know?

Jesus knew, and that is why we consider as canon that which He and His aposltes used.

I guess that means that all of the Jews living before the time of the apostles never knew the OT Scriptures!

There were many different opinons, to be sure. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, which is why they did not believe in angels, resurrection, etc.

 

[mikeledes]

I’m not denying that the Holy Spirit was upon all those who heard Peter’s message. And as I’ve said before, this verse doesn’t seem to be saying anything contrary to what I’ve said concerning the absolute necessity of being born of the Spirit to make sinners receptive to the truth.

Hi Nick! The “all” is referring to Cornelius and his household. They were the ones God intended to save. The problem is that you identify “baptism with the Spirit” with regeneration and yet the Bible clearky states that Cornelius was regnerated Acts 10:44:

Acts 11:13-16

**13"And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here;
14and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’
15"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning.
16"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ **

Cornelius was neither regnerated nor saved prior to Acts 10:44.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[loscampos]

No educated Catholic will say that the Church has more authority than the Bible. The properly catechized CAtholic knows that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two inseparable strands of the same Divine Revelation that came from Jesus. These are called the Deposit of Faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3-4

.

I agree with you and we must remember the church assembled the NT no the other way around. When Jesus died his disciples didnt use scripture to teach, the used the spoken word of Jesus to teach with. Like I said i agree with pretty much everything you say, and in reality the church does have more authority, not because it is better, rather because Jesus himslef instituted it.

 

[guanophore]

Are you certain that the concept of “papacy” is mentioned somewhere in the bible? If so, could you tell me where?

Don’t you think this belongs on another thread? Are you trying to derail this thread by cluster bombing? Our word “pope” from which papacy came, just means father. There are many examples of spirtual fatherhood in the bible.

Are you saying that “this rock” is Peter? If so, why don’t other parts of the NT mention or suggest that Peter is to be the head of the church?

There are many reference in the NT, and in the early writings to the primacy of Peter. But this topic also is already on another thread, so why don’t we take this over there?

How do you get from this (binding and loosing) to a pope, and where in Scripture is Peter given the headship of the church?

By Jesus, after His resurrection. Please don’t let your anti-Catholic hostility lose the focus of the thread, Nick. Let’s stick to Sola Scriptura here, and take your other issues to threads where they will be on topic, ok?

 

[loscampos]

We received the Teaching on what is true religion from Jesus:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. John 1:14

Jesus, full of grace and truth, established the Church. The Church then reflected her teachings in the New Testament.

Gosh. This seems so much anti-Catholic hostillity! How did this happen?

No educated Catholic will say that the Church has more authority than the Bible. The properly catechized CAtholic knows that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two inseparable strands of the same Divine Revelation that came from Jesus. These are called the Deposit of Faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3-4

Your perception of the church has been horribly contaminated or wounded, or both. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. She is the pure bride of Christ, and that is why she is without error.

This is faulty reasoning. The authority given to the Apostles by Jesus was to teach the gospel. They did this in word and in writing. Both are equal in authority. It is true that the Church came before the scriptures, but the scriptures accurately reflect the teaching of the Church.

Jesus knew, and that is why we consider as canon that which He and His aposltes used.

There were many different opinons, to be sure. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, which is why they did not believe in angels, resurrection, etc.

I didnt that this was posted when i wrote my previous response. Great response by the way. Glad to be talking with someone rather than against them.

 

[mikeledes]

If it really is rather simple, how can you be sure that the pillar of truth is the church?

1 Timothy 3:15

**15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. **

'Cuz the Bible tells me so.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

Is it possible that “this rock” (in Matt. 16:18) is the confession of Peter, and not Peter himself?

Yes, I think it is both. And Jesus is the Rock. Jesus grafted Peter into His own rockyness. But, that is another thread!

Here you are using a circular argument–you’re attempting to prove your point by simply assuming your point. Although I’m in agreement with you that grace is a FREE gift (it cannot be merited or earned) there are millions of people who call themselves “Christians” who firmly believe what Rome teaches; that the grace that saves requires some degree of cooperation and effort on the part of the individual.

This also belongs on another thread! Why are you derailing this thread? I thought you wnated to talk about Sola Scriptura? Was I wrong? Do you just want to find fault with the Catholic faith wherever you can?

 

[guanophore]

Here you are using a circular argument–you’re attempting to prove your point by simply assuming your point. Although I’m in agreement with you that grace is a FREE gift (it cannot be merited or earned) there are millions of people who call themselves “Christians” who firmly believe what Rome teaches; that the grace that saves requires some degree of cooperation and effort on the part of the individual.

This also belongs on another thread! Why are you derailing this thread? I thought you wnated to talk about Sola Scriptura? Was I wrong? Do you just want to find fault with the Catholic faith wherever you can?

 

[mikeledes]

No educated Catholic will say that the Church has more authority than the Bible. The properly catechized CAtholic knows that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two inseparable strands of the same Divine Revelation that came from Jesus. These are called the Deposit of Faith “which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3-4

The Church was established to safeguard, accurately transmit, and propagate the word of God. It is at the the service of God and His word.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me that if the bible doesn’t teach anything about a papacy, then no pope existed in the early church. Here is just ONE passage where the NT would very likely mention something about a pope or a papal office of some kind, but it doesn’t. Instead we find that the HEAD OF THE CHURCH IS CHRIST:

Well, of course the head of the church is Christ! That does not mean Jesus did not pass His authority to His Apostles to act in His name. You have your Sola Scriptura blinders on in making this statement (in an effort to GET BACK TO THE TOPIC)

On what basis would one assume that, if one did not find something in the NT, then it did not exist? Even the Bible itself states that it does not contain everything! Scripture is very clear that the Teachings, whether given by word of mouth or by letter, are to be held in equal authority.

What you must establish, in order to throw out Sacred Tradition, is that the Church went off the rails at some point, and abandoned the Teachings delivered to her by the Apostles. This is also on another thread!

 

[guanophore]

Jesus didn’t come to the earth to start up another religion and we already have Jesus as our high Priest, so it is obvious that we have no need for any popes. Jesus came to the world to save His lost sheep. The deposit of faith is the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit is our guide to understanding the Scriptures. Teachers are also necessary, but without God’s written word, what should the teachers teach?

This is an excellent question, especially on the topic of SS. What was taught before the NT was written? And since many communities did not have the entire NT, or there was debate about what was included in it up until the 4th century, how was the Gospel preserved? this happened through Sacred Tradition, in the Apostolic Succession, just as it is done today.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Michael,

I didn’t understand this part of your post. Are you saying that the existence of RC apostasy means that the devil was able to overpower God for nearly 1500 years?

I think that is what it would mean. Of course, many Catholics aposticized, but if no Church was maintained in purity, then that means Jesus is a liar, and the HS is a weakling.