Sola Scriptura - unifier?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

At what point did I say that Christ wrote a book? Christ is God, as John 1 tells us. The word of God was written under the inspiration of God. It was not written by men outside of the Spirit’s guidance.

And it was written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ.

I didn’t say they weren’t human beings. What I said was your apparent focus that it was human beings while marginalizing the inspiration seems troubling.

 

[Bon_Croix]

Agreed. I with that.

 

[mcq72]

And it was written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ.

Well then could I say the decrees of Nicea, or Trent, or first or second Vatican were written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ ?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Protestants can not unify themselves on sola scriptura because they are privately interpreting scripture. It is a more of a deciding what one believes and then interpreting Scripture in a way to fit those beliefs.

Unfortunately throughout history, those who follow protestantism, have been deceived into believing they can privately interpret scripture, that the Holy Spirit is leading them, but the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth and there can only be one truth.

Also, when you look at the history of how the canon of the NT was put together and that it took a couple hundred years and several councils of discussion by Catholic Bishops to decide what the New Testamet Canon would be, and that it was the Pope and the Bishops who decided the criteria for what books would be chosen for the New Testament and which ones would not be chosen, how can one say the writings that the Catholic church chose and what the Catholic church put together as the New Testament, can stand on it’s own, without the Catholic Church?

 

[mcq72]

It is a more of a deciding what one believes and then interpreting Scripture in a way to fit those beliefs.

Such a blanket statement seems cynical, for an otherwise temptation to be avoided by all.

We all decide what to believe,and the best hope to be conformed to scriptural Holy Spirit intent.

 

[JonNC]

And 500 years before the Reformation, there was a massive Schism that tore His Church in half. The teaching authority of the Church, being divided, leads to further error and division.
We all have mirrors.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

We all decide what to believe,and the best hope to be conformed to scriptural Holy Spirit intent.

So, no matter how much one believes something, it doesn’t make it true. Sometimes truth is hard to believe but it is still true. One needs to seek for truth and then try to understand why it is true.

 

[mcq72]

Unfortunately throughout history, those who follow protestantism, have been deceived into believing they can privately interpret scripture, that the Holy Spirit is leading them, but the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth and there can only be one truth.

I would agree that any error in scriptural interpretation is certainly private. Of course I would disagree to you citing only P’s with such a fault.

 

[LeahPaz]

If you ask a Lutheran, Lutheranism is a tradition within the Church, not a new Church. I’ve never heard it said that Lutherans deny the existence of miracles today. In fact, a knowledgeable Lutheran will affirm the miracle of the Eucharist when the true body and blood of Christ are distributed and received.

Ok, I don’t know anything about Lutherans, but those who call themselves Reformed today, do not believe that miracles (according to a strict definition by them) are possible today. Look up about cessationism. They believe in the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the cessation of such miracles like the apostles did when the Church was being formed. Some unofficial leaders of the Reformed Calvinist tradition are John Macarthur and the recently passed away R. C. Sproul. I don’t know all the denominations that call themselves “reformed” today, but as far as I know, if a church calls themselves reformed, it is because they are Calvinist and believe in the cessation of supernatural miracles and the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some are Presbyterian.

Cessationism is not biblical, it can’t be backed up with sola scriptura, that’s why I brought it up.

 

[Wannano]

Q

We all decide what to believe,and the best hope to be conformed to scriptural Holy Spirit intent.

So, no matter how much one believes something, it doesn’t make it true. Sometimes truth is hard to believe but it is still true. One needs to seek for truth and then try to understand why it is true.

Agreed. No one is exempt.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I would agree that any error in scriptural interpretation is certainly private. Of course I would disagree to you citing only P’s with such a fault.

So, I take you are saying that Catholics have also erred in Scriptural interpretation, and I would then wonder, if you believe that, why do you believe the writings they chose for the NT are correct writings?

well it certainly can stand alone after it’s inception right?

No

i mean if the CC was raptured up to heaven would the bible disappear, and all of a sudden not be His Written Word ?

That would just lead to more division and lack of truth, and many more Bible translations (like we need more) to defend the different interpretations. Besides Jesus promised His Church would always be here for us and that the Church is where you find truth.

 

[mcq72]

how can one say the writings that the Catholic church chose and what the Catholic church put together as the New Testament, can stand on it’s own, without the Catholic Church?

well it certainly can stand alone after it’s inception right ? i mean if the CC was raptured up to heaven would the bible disappear, and all of a sudden not be His Written Word ?

 

[fhansen]

I saw an argument made by a Protestant website (I think it was bible.ca) that many Protestants hold on to tradition and their own opinions and thus do not follow Sola Scriptura. He added that if all Protestants followed Sola Scriptura, there would be no divisions within the Protestants.

Thoughts?

Now that’s funny, I mean really funny. Where we have the _ancient traditions, held by the ancient churches, we have little significant differences in basic doctrine even after centuries of virtual isolation between east and west. Where we have Scripture held to be the primary authority/rule of faith, we have tons of differences, spinning off a variety of churches who cannot agree on basic teachings such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, whether or not one can lose their salvation and the need for repentance and confession if they sin, whether grace is always resistible or irresistible, what role, if any, the will of man plays in his salvation, or even on the deity of Jesus, based, again, on Scripture alone.

They might agree on Sola Fide, which is wrong depending, perhaps, on how the term is qualified, and Sola Scriptura, while not necessarily agreeing on the meaning of Scripture!

 

[MT1926]

At best it is co author but to say only one end of partnership (the “community” and not the Lord is misleading and false

I’m good with co author. Don’t really like authored that makes it seems like the sacred writers were taking dictation which I’m sure we would all agree didn’t happen.

An equal falsehood would be to say that the Jews created the Messiah, not God.

Actually, to say God created Jesus would be a falsehood as well. That is the Arian heresy of the 4th century.

While some may go to far with bible role, some go to far with community/church role. Both are probably motivated out of justifying, or quibbling about, ones faith community, over another.

I totally agree. That is why I believe Jesus would have left us a visible authority to draw the line for us on the extent of these roles.

God Bless

 

[prayerrider]

Roman Catholic and Orthodox share the teaching authority of the Church Fathers. Along with Holy Scripture, this is the authentic, pre-denominational teaching authority. Protestant denominations, whether Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist or Baptist,
etc. times 30,000 plus, have erected their own “teaching authorities,” from Luther to Cranmer to Spurgeon to MacArthur to Osteen, etc. times 30,000 plus.

 

[goout]

goout:

JonNC:

At what point did I say that Christ wrote a book? Christ is God, as John 1 tells us. The word of God was written under the inspiration of God. It was not written by men outside of the Spirit’s guidance.

And it was written by human beings, none of which were Jesus Christ.

I didn’t say they weren’t human beings. What I said was your apparent focus that it was human beings while marginalizing the inspiration seems troubling.

And nowhere did I even remotely imply that.
You are reading that into the comments, because…?

Is it avoidance? Or fear of where the ideas necessarily lead you.

Jon, I know nothing of your mother. You probably have a family story. Maybe it’s written down. Nonetheless, the story that exists is embodied in the flesh and blood of your family, in your mother’s flesh and blood, and the flesh and blood of those before her.

And I cannot write that story, nor can I remake that story in my image. You and your family must write it, and without the reality of your persons, none of it matters. It has no integrity and no authority outside the persons who embody it.

I can say whatever I wish about your family story, but your family is the final word on the integrity of the story, in your persons .
The story is one with the family, and without it, it’s just words on a page.

 

[mcq72]

So, I take you are saying that Catholics have also erred in Scriptural interpretation, and I would then wonder, if you believe that, why do you believe the writings they chose for the NT are correct writings?

I do not believe once right always right is a prototype anywhere in history, OT or NT. That is He has always perfectly guided, and the effectualness of such is conditional on man’s sufficient , even perfect reception of such guidance.

Or at this point I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, or like eating a fish, taking the meat but being careful not to swallow the bones ( even if one has had their throat blessed by St. Blaise if I may respectfully say).

Understand your perplexity of our seemingly illogical stand. But we have a different understanding of some things. We feel that we must take heed and pray to be graced to stay on the straight and narrow, to cling tightly to His perfect Shepherding, on an individual level, and on a corporate level (from local to entire faith body community).We are to take heed lest we fall into error like others, or like we ourselves have done in the past but been pulled back up by His grace. I think Catholics understand this from an individual perspective , but refuse to apply it to corporate level.( again dealing with teaching on faith and morals).

 

[mcq72]

I totally agree. That is why I believe Jesus would have left us a visible authority to draw the line for us on the extent of these roles.

Thank you, and we both agree to the Holy Spirit drawing the line with and thru visible authority, save for me , the papal office and that infallibly.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Understand your perplexity of our seemingly illogical stand. But we have a different understanding of some things.

Actually I understand exactly what you are saying because I, at one point made those arguments also, before leaving protestism.

The dilemma is you either have to believe Jesus is leading the Church now as He did then or wonder were they wrong then, which means we all are wrong now but since we have God’s promise that He will always lead us, we know the Church was right then and it still is right now.
Leaves you with only one decision - come home. Just come home.

 

[MT1926]

And I cannot write that story, nor can I remake that story in my image . You and your family must write it, and without the reality of your persons, none of it matters. It has no integrity and no authority outside the persons who embody it.

I can say whatever I wish about your family story, but your family is the final word on the integrity of the story, in your persons .
The story is one with the family, and without it, it’s just words on a page.

I just wanted to add to this that, which you kind of already implied, without someone in his family line we would have no way of fully understanding his story.

My wife and I, from time to time will say you are pathetic. We usually pronounce it patatic and it is a term of endearment and remembrance of how tired we where after a hiking trip and just laid around for a day. Anyone on the outside reading those words on a page would call me a terrible husband, but our family knows it is a sign of how strong our love is for one another.

Your post makes perfect logical sense to me.

God Bless