Sola Scriptura Question

[placido]

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Dear Rev Kev, do you own a Bible? Do you recognise all the 27 books of the New Testament, including Peter 1 & 2, as inspired? Do you know that the author of Peter 1 & 2 denied Jesus 3 X? Is there a greater sin than denying Jesus? If - contrary to what Jesus said in Matthew 23:3 - you can’t trust a doctrine that is passed via sinners (crooks) then how come you trust the greatest sinner who penned Peter 1 & 2?
I’m waiting for your “enlightened” answer.

placido

 

[JRKH]

I have a problem with using the Holy Spirit to cast God’s imprimatur on this or that act or event. Protestants claim the Holy Ghost supported them in the 16th century; Joseph Smith says he knew that he had found another testament of Jesus Christ, because the Holy Ghost told him so. Who are we to say these people are liars? Leave the Holy Ghost out of it.

Teaching and passing on to succeeding generations the Truth went on wonderfully before the compilation of the texts that go into the bible. The period of time from 30AD to 400AD witnessed a dramatic growth and strengthening of the Church.

Compiling different works that now make up the NT and calling it a canon has the fundamental weakness of allowing individuals outside of Church Tradition to lay claim to the bible by giving it their own unique interpretation. Without a textbook so to speak, such individuals would be at a serious loss to challenge the Church.

In Christ

I do see your point here.
But you do recognize that the Church had to fend off a number of heresies even before the compiling of the canon.
Also I would say that the Church is better served by having a defined canon rather than not because then anyone could pull up a “Gospel of Thomas”, or “Shepard of Hermas” or other apochraphal book and there would be no “Church canon” to say it was not inspired. So I think that, with or without a canon, the evil one is going to find a way to lead many astray by twisting scripture.

Peace
James

 

[eric51]

I am sure we all believe in the inspiration of the holy Spirit, however not all discoveries are (name removed by moderator)ired.
A simple example of this is the amount of Christian denominations (maybe 30,000?) outside the Catholic/Orthodox fold.
With their differing beliefs, they cannot all be due to divine Inspiration without there being multiple gods - as Christians, we believe in one God, then most if not all of their claims are false.

Exactly, “not all discoveries” or individual revelations are inspired. That is exactly my point. And that is why resorting to the Holy Spirit to back up one’s position is fundamentally flawed. Inspiration from the Holy Spirit cannot be logically supported. Whereas, supporting a belief or action based on Christian precedent, and based on teachings of the Apostles and ECFs, can be inferred–thru PRECEDENT.

Let’s leave the Holy Spirit out of it. Let the Mormons or fundamentalists “prove” their heresies thru a burning in the bossom. For my part, I will stick with logic.

In Christ

 

[JRKH]

Exactly, “not all discoveries” or individual revelations are inspired. That is exactly my point. And that is why resorting to the Holy Spirit to back up one’s position is fundamentally flawed. Inspiration from the Holy Spirit cannot be logically supported. Whereas, supporting a belief or action based on Christian precedent, and based on teachings of the Apostles and ECFs, can be inferred–thru PRECEDENT.

Let’s leave the Holy Spirit out of it. Let the Mormons or fundamentalists “prove” their heresies thru a burning in the bossom. For my part, I will stick with logic.

In Christ

This is nicely put. The Holy Spirit of God cannot inspire conflicting belief systems and there has to be some way to check an “inspiration” or insight.
It is the combination of prayerful reflection along with the magisterial writings of the Church down through the centuries that porvide this check and balance.

Peace
James

 

[Garland]

Amen on the" burning of the bosom", St John said we must," test the spirits", for they are not all from GOD. I can think of only one being happy about all the sect in christianityand his name is Satan. His will be done. Garland

 

[eric51]

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

This is another area where Protestants differ from Catholics: we tend not to trust the Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic church - to my way of thinking it’s a pretty human thing too.

I’d probably be a Catholic today if it weren’t for the absurd abuses of the Middle Ages. I simply can’t trust the doctrine that is passed via crooks, murderers, nepotists, and other really bad people (I’m fully aware that not all of the clergy elites were corrupted but massive quantities - including popes were). The current sexual abuse scandals point to the all too humanness and sometimes corrupted nature of the church hierarchy - a Bishop that would turn a blind eye to pedophilia is not the sort of person who can be trusted with sacred doctrine.

Could it be that the church decided to canonize certain texts because they recognized that doctrine would stray the further that the church got from the apostles? Like that old game where something is whispered in one ear and then the next and by the time it’s at the end of the line it’s nowhere near what it was at the start. It only takes one bad self-serving pope to promulgate a corrupted doctrine to set the church on a wrong course.

The biblical record is the best record of the faith of the Apostles.

Odd, you would mention the “biblical record” because that very record attest to God delegating authority.

Well, if you have problems with Apostolic Succession, then you have problems not only with orthodox Christianity, but with its Jewish antecedents. The concept of authority being delegated by God, is a thread that runs back to the earliest stages of hebrew formation. God chose to whom or what He would delegate authority. Consecration, the priesthood, are all based upon authority being conferred and on grace being given through those in authority.

To attempt to castigate the Church for being “human”, and it is very human, is to cast doubt on God’s decision to confer authority. Making mistakes is an inevitable consequence of humanity, but it does not vitiate in the least the authority that the Church has: that authority comes from God, and only God can withdraw it.

God has always used a human agency by which He works His Will on this earth. That also, along with Apostolic Succession, is a very old biblical theme. To resent this decision by God is not only blasphemous, but is also probably based on your unwillingness to forgo what you see as your freedom of action. It is very easy to claim religiosity and then try to show it by doing your own thing and then ascribing your freedom of action to God. Somehow, though, I doubt that God is impressed.

 

[SteveGC]

Good post, eric. And I just sorta had to chuckle at this…

I’m quit familiar on how the canonization process worked. Point is, we now have a sacred canon, so let’s use it.

to me, it says “yeah yeah yeah, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, the Bible I now put my entire faith in, my entire trust of salvation. Thanks Church, but by the way, you’re false and not of God, so I don’t need you…but hey, thanks again for this great Book! ”

 

[JRKH]

Good post, eric. And I just sorta had to chuckle at this…

to me, it says “yeah yeah yeah, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, the Bible I now put my entire faith in, my entire trust of salvation. Thanks Church, but by the way, you’re false and not of God, so I don’t need you…but hey, thanks again for this great Book! ”

As I was coming to this thread to see what was new on it, it struck me how those who believe in Sola Scriptura place their full trust in the Bible but then have to hedge.

By that I mean that when they go to interpret something like the term “Church” they have to do it from the perspective of rejecting the ancient Church. So they say, “what does “Church” mean since we Know it can’t mean an authoritative body headed on earth by Christ’'s own Vicar”.

Thus, when they interpret Mt 16:18-19 or Mt 18:15-18 where Christ defines the Church’s Authority and Leardership, it must be “the body of believers” or some such thing.

Never mind that 1500 years of Church history never read it that way. Never mind that the Apostles themselves met to hammer out differences, Never mind that the structure that evolved during the first 400 years of the Church (pre-canon) is the same basic structure we have today. No - that must all be wrong. WHY?? - Because, “Church” can’t really mean what a simple reading of scripture clearly says that it is.
“Church” - especially a Church with the Authority to Bind and Loose - can’t be what Jesus was really saying…

 

[SteveGC]

Yes indeed JR

Luther really orphaned millions by his full rejection of The Church. It’s really a shame to watch even the most articulate and educated of protestant preachers raise the Bible up over his head and claim it as sole authority, without as much as one utterance of where that Book came from.

Today, protestants don’t reject The Church for the same reasons Luther and company did. Today, they simply can’t fathom God putting humans in charge of anything, especially not the role of vicarious shepherd. Nevermind that God has done that very thing, as eric pointed out, throughout all of salvation history…using men, prophets, kings, etc to promulgate His message, keep His family unified, etc.

The modern plague of individualism and anti-authority puts up thick barriers between many people and their humble acceptance of God’s earthly representatives.

 

[Garland]

Hi eric51, I guess my favorite by most protestants is the keys given to St. Peter by Jesus to heavens gate. They will say he was talking about Peters faith and other out of the record things, but never the obvious that he was giveing him all authority over his church until he comes. His will be done. Garland