J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Except there is no authority to tell you what the Scriptures say. How do I know that your interpretation is more authoritative than Joe’s down the street?
- Status
F
Frontline
Guest
The same could be asked about your faith.
How do I know that your church’s interpretation is more authoritative than Joe’s church down the street?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Because Jesus gave the Church authority!
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18)
He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)
These promises (and others) were made by Jesus Christ Himself. Not to individuals did He make these promises, but to His Apostles, the first Bishops, so that they may lead the Church, which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)
This teaching authority, which Jesus gave to His Apostles, and which was passed on to their successors, is what the Church calls the Magisterium.
S
SIA
Guest
The Catholic theology on Mary and the pope.
P
Phillipos
Guest
what I find most funny with the Bible alone crowd is that though they hiss and shriek at tradition each of them have traces of tradition shown every Sunday and Wednesday. Find for me in the Bible the “alter call” to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, the sinners prayer, use of instruments in worship, various pastors (youth, worship, family, pastoral care), and asking Jesus to come into your heart.
F
Frontline
Guest
Let me put it this way:
Catholics claim that Protestants cannot know what truly constitutes Scripture without the infallible declarations of the Catholic Church - right? So basically - Protestants cannot know for sure that the Bible they are reading is complete and without false epistles, unless they rely upon the infallible declarations of the Catholic Church.
“This is the Protestant problem,” says the Catholic.
But here is my question for the Catholic who brings this assertion against the Protestant:
“How do you know for sure what truly constitutes Scripture?”
S
SIA
Guest
In my belief they are false.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
it was the cathloic that wrote the bible and said what books of the NT was to get in the bible,a good book to read is where did we get the bible
S
SIA
Guest
The Bible was comprised by the Early Church. It was not written by the Catholic church. Huge difference.
F
Frontline
Guest
Any Protestant who claims that they have no traditions is a liar and the truth is not in him. We certainly have traditions. The doctrine of sola Scriptura teaches that all our traditions are subject to and must be tested by the word of God - so that if any tradition is found to be anti-biblical, it must be condemned and immediately abandoned.
Also - any tradition that has no grounds whatsoever in Scripture - cannot and therefore must not be regarded as binding upon the consciences of believers. To not partake in extra biblical traditions will have no effect upon one’s salvation. This is what sola Scriptura teaches.
The alter call is - in the opinion of the Reformed Fatih, an anti-biblical tradition that ultimately denies the sovereignty of God in salvation, and gives the impression that men are saved by what they do. This is a very subtle heresy that turns the gospel into a works based salvation - and this is why the Evangelical Church is so messed up. This practice has led to the heresy of “decisional regeneration” which is just as bad as the false teaching of “baptismal regeration.”
In short - any so called Protestant who continues in the practice of anti- biblical traditions such as the alter call and other man made religious schemes, only demonstrates that he does not truly hold to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Therefore - it is not the authority of the Reformed Faith that causes all the division - but rather it is the rebellious refusal of certain professing Protestants to obey the authority of God’s word above all.
F
Frontline
Guest
Hi Bill,
This leads to another question:
How do you know that the catholic church wrote the Bible?
And how do you know that they were correct in their determination of which books belong in the Bible?
S
SteveGC
Guest
But you are assuming that every Christian who heard the epistle firsthand readily understood it’s content. Your argument here does not show that Scripture is perspicuous. The Bible may be legible, but certainly not perspicuous. The Bible itself does not attest to its understandable nature, nor its clarity…quite the contrary.
In general, the arguments you make go in circles. You claim the Bible is understandable, yet Christians often misunderstand it. You claim this is due to their unwillingness to understand it, but you don’t account for the millions who are ready and willing to understand, yet do not. You claim it is the unregenerates that don’t understand, suggesting it is only the regenerate that do, but you have nothing to back up that claim. By making this statement, you insult the millions who are “born again” (according to your definition), telling them their misunderstanding of scripture is due to their lack of faith. This is hog-wash. Besides, you can’t define what it is they’re supposed to understand.
You infer that it takes time for most of the faithful (the regenerate) to receive the full understanding of scripture (a point I don’t refute), yet you make no inference to the impact that these “expected differences among God’s children” have on their salvation (i.e. what makes one child of God different from another is often his/her views on the necessity of baptism). Perhaps you’re saying Christians do gain prompt understanding of that which is required for their salvation? The fuller understanding of other things is what takes time? If so, I wouldn’t refute that, except that there ARE different understandings of what is required for salvation (among sola scriptura protestants), so I guess you are in fact saying that even salvific understanding may come at a much later time in a Christian’s life. If so, something’s quite wrong with that too.
You claim that false teachers may be the problem, implying that teachers of the truth are beneficial (i.e. your example of Paul), yet you contradict that by claiming one can clearly understand Scripture in time, without teachers. So, do we need teachers, or don’t we? And if we do, what does that say about your sole-authority of the Bible theory?
You claim sin blocks the acceptance of understood Scripture (which I also agree with), but you use this claim to defend sola scriptura, as your “most important” point. Catholics don’t claim that sinful nonbelievers are part of the sola scriptura problem. We aren’t talking about “unregenerate”, heavily sinful nonbelievers here. We’re talking about faithful, regenerate Christians and the problem with sola scriptura as it relates to them. Acceptance has nothing to do with the problems of sola scriptura. Some Catholics are unaccepting too…but this in no way refutes the authenticity and teachings of The Catholic Church. So, I just don’t think you can use that in defense of sola scriptura, and certainly not as your “most important” point.
And this problem of differences in NOT analogous in the Catholic Church. By saying so, you are comparing an authority to an individual (apples and oranges). We say sola scriptura is a problematic authority because it teaches inconsistently…you counter by saying Catholics (individuals) are also in disagreement. You can’t use that logic. To stay logical, you must compare authorities. You would have to say, “The Catholic Church is a problematic authority because it teaches inconsistently”…which you cannot say. We say the disparity among sola scriptura Christians is the effect of your chosen authority, which is a critique on your different understandings of scripture. You criticize the lack of acceptance of Catholic teaching among some Catholics, and say that that is analogous. Not true. Again, we don’t argue the “acceptance” differences…just the “understanding and interpretive” differences.
In summary, you say this…
So, if I understand correctly…the Bible is clear and understandable, but only by those with human hearts open and ready to learn it. Nevermind that when they’re ready (which even you cannot define), they often gain a different understanding than you do (even though they pray to the same Holy Spirit). Nevermind that. They must’ve NOT been ready. Must be that they need more time to understand? But…how does one know when they’ve come to this new understanding? Do they just “know”? The Holy Spirit reveals the success of their understanding? You didn’t touch on this subject, but what I infer from your logic is that…no one really ever knows when they finally know. hmmm.
God Bless
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi.Thank you for the information. But this does not overturn the fact that there is just as much doctrinal and practical division in the Catholic Church - but clearly- just because it all remains under the umbrella of a Catholic profession and a regular mass attendance, you seem to pretend that it does not exist. Therefore it is clear that Catholics hypocritically blame the doctrine of sola Scriptura for all our divisions - when the fact is - your “infallible” teaching magisterium provides no real solution to division - but simply sweeps it under the rug. To deny this is to deceive yourself. I hope you can at least admit this obvious contradiction in the catholic apologetic methodology. Attacking sola Scriptura does nothing for your teaching magisterium. But thank you for your comments!
This has been somehow already addressed. Anyway I cannot see in my post how I pretend that there is no division or that it exists in the Catholic Church. I said there is NO division. There is difference in opinions but this is not enough to make a person stop becoming a Catholic. If there is any division like you say, the ‘deviationists’ would stop becoming a Catholic either by default or in more serious case be excommunicated. There is no way you can become a Catholic and do not accept the Magestrium. Thus the point I am making, within the Catholic Church there is NO division in doctrine and dogma.
You have used some strong words but I can only say with strong belief that the Catholic Church is one. Surely this is not the same as with Protestantism where plainly there is more than one churches. When you disagree, you leave the church and form another one resulting in two churches. In other words now you have two ‘magestriums’ that spell the belief and practice of the two churches respectively. When you form the resulting church you are not accepting the former church or the pastors there. Now that is a division.
In Catholicism, the Magestrium is still its official teaching, which is to be adhered to, and believed by all Catholics. A Catholic is duty bound to obey the Magestrium and accepts her priests. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
You have given a few examples from a poll where Catholics disagree in personal opinion. I’ll go through that again. Homosexuality. There is no doubt many homosexual Catholics who may think that gays should be allowed to practice their sexuality. But the Church says engaging in homosexual act is a sin. Regardless of whatever personal opinion a gay Catholic may has, he is forbidden to practice homosexuality and if he does he commits sin.
Similarly in the case of artificial birth control.
Ultimately, the oneness of Catholicism is because there is central authority to decide on faith and moral. If they are derived from the Bible then the interpretation of controversial Biblical verses is to be understood from the tradition of what they always have been.
I cannot say much for Sola Scripture due to personal lack of knowledge but if you allow different interpretations and practices then obviously it causes division in Protestantism.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I would be not so quick as to say whose interpretation is right or wrong. After all Protestants are Christians and believe in the greatest commandment and that Jesus saves us from our sin. We all do that in principle and nothing is above the law of love.
Ultimately our objective is to be with God eternally in heaven. Will one go to hell if a Christian does not accept the Pope as the leader of the Church, does not ask Mary to intercede and does not receive the Sacraments? From a Catholic point of view you would be simply missing some of the graces that could help you toward heavenly objective though by not practicing them if you can stand on your own you still can be a holy Christian. And vice versa – will a Catholic who does them go to hell (if they are so wrong in believing them)?
The pertinent point of this thread I believe is that there are indeed multiple interpretations of Biblical verses and different interpretations lead to different churches.
But we know that Jesus wants us to be one as he and the Father are one. When churches are being fractured into various denominations, you are certainly not one.
S
SIA
Guest
What does your Bible say?
S
SIA
Guest
Scripture.
- Status