Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it disingenuous that you didn’t engage a single question directly. If my question had been how do you determine the correct understanding of Scripture then your answer would have been sufficient but my questions are more direct than that. Would you care to try again or are you purposefully dodging?
 
I think it’s a tad difficult to do it accurately without the benefit of sacred tradition.

Do you or your clergy examine the work of the bigger named ECF’s? I ask because I do not know your background or denomination and some mysteriously seem to find zero value in the ECF’s literature.

I’m glad you mentioned historical context because 1st century Judea is one of the two lenses I think people need in order to have a proper understanding of when examining Christian doctrine.
 
Good point. I think the outright rejection of anything authoritative is a cultural thing more than anything. In America we are all about ‘freedom’ and reject any sign of potential tyranny.

Unfortunately some of our clergy have done nothing to ease their fears.

And unfortunately, lack of legit and Godly authority can lead to crumbling infrastructure and we see this with certain denominations being driven off a cliff.
 
I answered your question directly. You just don’t like the answer. Pose a disingenuous question, then you shouldn’t be surprised when you receive a disingenuous answer.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
JW’s are another modern day invention – like Protestant Churches, lacking any sort of pedigree/unbroken chain back to the apostles.

And since they lack a legit pedigree, nobody should take their claims of authority seriously.
Click to expand...
I’m curious what claims of authority protestants have pronounced.
 
From my experience, most don’t claim anything. The pastor typically has the same amount of authority as the pew sitters. There is a certain amount of respect for the pastor, though.

The more rigid denominations like COC and KJV-only are another story.
 
Mishakel said:
I’m curious what claims of authority protestants have pronounced.
Click to expand...
Good question that I am pondering…can only quickly think of Augustine citing the surpassing authority of Scripture…of course he cites other authorities to which many P churches can also…but I am equally struck by the tone of the question…and how it reminds me of the apostles questioning the “other” disciples of Jesus…of course Jesus told them to chill, that indeed they were disciples even though they didn’t hang with the twelve…or I am reminded of Jewish leaders citing their “connection” to father Abraham or Moses etc., as they questioned Jesus’s authority.
 
Last edited:
Lenten_ashes said:
What I’m saying is that Churches outside the Bark of Peter lack any legitimate authority and do not have the promises of infallibility on doctrinal matters
Click to expand...
Sounds like the classic slippery slope of being a respector of persons on this. Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened must also be respective promises to your way of thinking. A sort of OT priestly, ruling tribalism within the nation of light.

But thank you for speaking straightforward and allowing me likewise
 
Last edited:
goout said:
The fact that you equate Christian obedience to unthinking and immoral acts of war says a lot.
Click to expand...
Again twisting my words…you purposely left out the word " unconditional " obedience and no mention of Peter’s civil disobedience.

The twisting may say a lot about what you seek, for you will think you have found it.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
I answered your question directly. You just don’t like the answer. Pose a disingenuous question, then you shouldn’t be surprised when you receive a disingenuous answer.
Click to expand...
So you answered them (plural), or you gave a disingenuous answer? 🤔

All you’ve shown me is that you don’t have an answer and you’re touchy about certain questions.
 
goout said:
Which was the whole point of his incarnation: to establish community between God and people.
Click to expand...
I thought God already had that of sorts…i mean i thought the community, a people, even a nation, were carriers of the promise and a seed thru which to bring forth the incarnation…but yes, His community has been refined…i would think the whole thing of incarnation was to save His people, and any other willing soul on the earth, past, present and future.

SS does not deny this “community”, the light of the world, the pillar of truth.
goout said:
You are discarding a basic tenet:
obedience is to legitimate authority.
Click to expand...
Understand…yet sometimes I think those who put forth there own legitimacy only weakly address any challenge.
 
Last edited:
Alright, mcq: After some reading of Saint Benedict, reflection as I worked, some refreshing conversations and prayer; I have returned.

I’ve decided that someone has to break the cycle of mutually assured vilifying attack/counterattack and recrimination. That person, practicing Christian love; will be me.

I would like to ask some basic questions, if I may.

I’m going to share what I understand of the Protestant position and I hope I’m understanding you guys correctly.

Sola Scriptura: Essentially boils down to Sacred Scripture is the only infallible guide to faith and morals. If it’s not found explicitly in Sacred Scripture; it’s to be disregarded.

Sola Fide: Essentially boils down to that the only thing that makes you righteous before God is faith. All else follows from faith.

Now that I’ve stated what I hope is a correct understanding of your core beliefs; allow me to illustrate a point that I believe invalidates these two beliefs.

Saint Paul wrote: “ Work out your salvation with fear and trembling… “ This I use to illustrate what I see as error in SS in this way: If once saved is always saved; why would Saint Paul say this? Under this doctrine, there would be no need to work anything out. I hope you see my point. If SS holds true, Sacred Scripture directly, in the above passage; refutes once saved/always saved.

Then there’s two passages that further illustrate my point and this includes Sola Fide.

Saint James wrote two famous passages:

“ Even the demons believe; and shudder… “
“ Faith without works is dead… “

If your theologians rigorously practice Sola Scriptura, and I’m not meaning to be disrespectful; how do they reconcile these two above passages with the belief of Sola Fide that arises from your reading of the Early chapter of Romans? Which is where, if I’m correct; is your theology’s point of origin for Sola Fide.
 
Hi, mcq. Long time no see. As for your statement of abhorrence for church violence; I pointed it out as evidence against the sanctity of these men.

In our Church, one of the criteria to be canonized as a Saint is a life of demonstrated heroic holiness, virtue and charity. Saint Thomas Aquinas, one the Doctors of the Church; pretty much defined Catholic theology with his Summa Theologica.

His life was one such demonstration of heroic holiness, virtue and charity. Saints, in Sacred Tradition; are venerated for their examples of how to live a holy life. Many Catholics follow these saints because they showed their good fruits in how they lived their lives. Thus, worthy of belief.

In other words: A saint demonstrates that they practiced the Word of God in words and deeds; bearing good fruit. I can trust and follow a saint; since they demonstrated in their words and actions the true practice of Christian love and that they please God.

Thus, I condemned your leaders for their faults. Their fruits bore them out.
 
Last edited:
I respectfully opine, mcq; that you didn’t satisfactorily answer the question. If Sola Scriptura is correct; there would be no need to refer to the ECFs and their opinions on authority.

Authority can be found in Sacred Scripture; and I’m thinking in terms of the Upon this Rock discourse.

In this passage, Jesus gave Saint Peter the headship of the Church as His representative on Earth. That states, unequivocally IMHO; that Saint Peter and his successors have great authority as Christ’s delegate on Earth and defines the Church as His Church and Community on Earth. Break away from the Church and that authority; your community lacks any and all Apostolic Succession, your clergy have no valid Holy Orders, and you’re outside of Christ’s community He established on Earth.

I believe this based on a simple, clear and straightforward reading of the passage; which should be a satisfactory answer for you under the conditions of Sola Scriptura.

Now for your statement of an Apostle is defined by what’s in his heart. How can you, as a fallible human being; see into another man’s heart? How can you satisfactorily establish the legitimacy of his understanding that he receives from God?
What if you’re wrong about your belief about that Apostle and ended up disobeying God as a consequence?

Please, don’t misunderstand me. I believe you Protestants are Christians. Both in personal opinion, because you profess faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ; and in the declared statement of the Magisterium, Protestants are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, possessing some of the Faith; with a chance of receiving salvation with God’s Mercy.
 
Last edited:
Hardly so. We are the universal Church. I go to Church and one Sunday it’s a priest from Poland, the next Sunday a priest from Cameroon is presiding.

God always had some set chain of authority starting with Moses and then, by the laying on of hands, Joshua. And it continued for 1500 years after Christ ascended before Luther ultimately made his break.

If you are a believer in Christ then I consider you a brother in Christ. Just with some serious differences of opinion on structure and historical Christianity’s place in today’s modern world.
 
I love how you said it, L. A lot more concise and charitable than my lengthy essays. Lol
 
catholicray said:
All you’ve shown me is that you don’t have an answer and you’re touchy about certain questions.
Click to expand...
No, I answered your question directly as I said. If you want to complain about people responding to your sarcasm, then don’t use sarcasm.
 
Hodos said:
No, I answered your question directly as I said. If you want to complain about people responding to your sarcasm, then don’t use sarcasm.
Click to expand...
First my questions were disingenuous and now I’m being sarcastic. It’s truly unfortunate when you can not hear the tone of voice or see facial expressions on the internet. No worries I hope you have a blessed day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top