sola scriptura

[Denise1957]

Traverse, I hope you don’t think that my question regarding how doctine is arrived at in your church is rhetorical. I’m not trying to put you on the defensive at all. In fact, I listened to one of the sermons from the link you provided (one of Mr. Boston’s sermons, I think) and I liked it. He has a very nice speaking voice; quite humble and sincere.

However, if your church arrives at, or determines what doctrine is based on the consensus of the congregation, then this is the same as the Congregationalist Principle. You may know that the Congregationalists were a early Puritan denomination. They started out, long ago, being quite conservative. But given that they govern themselves based on the majority views of whatever the congregation at the individual local church level believes, they are now, of course, for the most part, quite liberal.

The problem with the Congregationalist Principal is that truth changes, based on what the individual congregation believes at any given time.

Even though we Catholics have a Pope who is the head of the Church, he doesn’t change what the Church has always taught. We don’t wait in anticipation for him to give us orders about what we should do, because the rules really don’t change, except in matters of discipline. The Pope just reiterates what the Church has taught, though he may define doctrine in a different light, his definition still remains true to the dogmas of the Church. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Traverse]

A majority determining doctrine isn’t really accurate. The bible determines our doctrine and we don’t see it as an ordeal to interpret that will lead to many different interpretations. If someone claims to believe what is unsound doctrine you’re going to be able to counter their belief with scripture, even if they refuse to hear it.

A person can interpret the bible improperly, sure, but we believe that if you approach the text honestly and considering the context of the whole, then that is sufficient for accurate interpretation. We believe that people twist the words of scripture rather than draw what seems to be an actual normal conclusion that is reasonable unless seen under the lens of sacred tradition.

 

[Denise1957]

A majority determining doctrine isn’t really accurate. The bible determines our doctrine and we don’t see it as an ordeal to interpret that will lead to many different interpretations. If someone claims to believe what is unsound doctrine you’re going to be able to counter their belief with scripture, even if they refuse to hear it.

A person can interpret the bible improperly, sure, but we believe that if you approach the text honestly and considering the context of the whole, then that is sufficient for accurate interpretation. We believe that people twist the words of scripture rather than draw what seems to be an actual normal conclusion that is reasonable unless seen under the lens of sacred tradition.

But how do you determine that someone’s claims are unsound? After all, people can honestly disagree on the interpretation.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

But how do you determine that someone’s claims are unsound?

Methinks this looks like an awfully great argument for Sola Scriptura.

 

[Traverse]

We determine unsound teaching in the light of scripture.

Honestly, I’ve never come to a situation where this hasn’t been possible where I can see what how someone else is using the bible and struggle to back up my own claim which also uses the bible. In practice what happens is someone usually makes an assumption about what a passage is really about while ignoring the context or says something like “well that was written to the Corinthians so it doesn’t apply to us anymore.” I’ve never come across a situation where we come to a stand still because neither of can prove which one is accurate about what the bible teaches.

That is not to say that there aren’t difficult passages, as Peter himself attests to, but he says that the words are twisted by the ignorant. If you study everything in its proper context you’re not going to have the ignorance that leads to misinterpretation unless you’re just outright looking for verses to support what you’ve already decided you believe, which is just picking and choosing.

So we determine what is unsound when it cannot be scripturally backed up. Really, I see this as how catholics handle things too. While you do have a magisterium in place they typically (from what I’ve seen) rule on matters based on what is in scripture and when they rule on what is sacred tradition my question would be similar to yours. Where you ask “how do you determine what is scripturally accurate” I would say “how do you determine what is actually sacred tradition?”

 

[Denise1957]

But how do you determine that someone’s claims are unsound? After all, people can honestly disagree on the interpretation.

Oops, I see that you’ve mostly answered the question already about how you determine that someone’s claims are unsound. What I would add is that people are generally honest when they disagree on interpretation, I think. It’s good that you consider the whole in your interpretation, but then maybe it becomes a matter of having the more convincing argument, a having a majority, maybe, convince the minority view. Anyway, that’s all I really have to say on the matter for now. Carry on…

 

[Denise1957]

We determine unsound teaching in the light of scripture.

Honestly, I’ve never come to a situation where this hasn’t been possible where I can see what how someone else is using the bible and struggle to back up my own claim which also uses the bible. In practice what happens is someone usually makes an assumption about what a passage is really about while ignoring the context or says something like “well that was written to the Corinthians so it doesn’t apply to us anymore.” I’ve never come across a situation where we come to a stand still because neither of can prove which one is accurate about what the bible teaches.

That is not to say that there aren’t difficult passages, as Peter himself attests to, but he says that the words are twisted by the ignorant. If you study everything in its proper context you’re not going to have the ignorance that leads to misinterpretation unless you’re just outright looking for verses to support what you’ve already decided you believe, which is just picking and choosing.

So we determine what is unsound when it cannot be scripturally backed up. Really, I see this as how catholics handle things too. While you do have a magisterium in place they typically (from what I’ve seen) rule on matters based on what is in scripture and when they rule on what is sacred tradition my question would be similar to yours. Where you ask “how do you determine what is scripturally accurate” I would say “how do you determine what is actually sacred tradition?”

You ask how I would determine what is sacred tradition, but that’s not for me to determine. That’s for the magisterium to determine.

 

[Pedro_1987]

Protestants still accept teaching. They’re just a bit more free to disregard what the preacher says if they disagree with their interpretation.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Even if there were sources, even contemporary, what makes us think that Paul converting gives him any authority by virtue of the conversion itself. I mean, I don’t see any practical reasoning behind it at least. After all as I said, many convert from one religion to the other all the time.

There are multiple issues here. But what you say is only telling that Christ has authority or Christ’s resurrection is true. Paul certainly didn’t die for the cause that he saw Christ. Rather, he died for the claim of the resurrection.

That being said, the fact that he even died does not convey anything about his authority, yes? I mean, you might die for the faith, but it certainly does not mean you had authority, right?

You’re missing the point of the relevancy of Paul’s veracity as it relates to this. I certainly don’t rely solely on his claim. It is, however, evidence. Again, you or I might die for our faith, but it would stand to reason that we wouldn’t if we objectively knew it never happened.

I am not sure what you mean here. The issue is not what the first Apostles did or didn’t do. We do not assent based on that. Our assent is completely based on practical reasoning. Do you realize this important point?

Practical reasoning does not determine dogma. Revelation does.

The authority of the Apostles and Bishops are the same.

Christ nor the apostles ever say this. I could reason my way into believing this but without revelaton confirming this, I would rather stick with Christ’s reasoning.

It also occurred to me that you mention this notion many times now

“was it there in the early church? is not, its invalid”

The above is a problematic position because the claim itself must first be grounded in faith. It is not intuitive that it is what you should do. Only thing intuitive is that you must assent to the Apostles and their successors. At least, regardless of whether YOU assent or not, do you agree that the assent is reasonable?

It is intuitive that if Christ sends his apostles with a particular charism and this charism is never said to apply to anyone after them, then I have no reason, much less a de fide one, to think it applies to anyone after them. It’s not a question of whether it is reasonable or not.

Not in terms of coming to know it in our earthly lives. Revelation cannot precede reason because reason is what tells you something is revelation and something is not. Revelation cannot tell you that it is revelation. That is circular. One cannot claim that revelation is identifiable by intuition because clearly, that is not the case in the real world.

It’s not a question of application. It’s a question of logical priority. God must choose to reveal Himself before my reason can process the information. Without revelation, I am relying solely on fallen reason, which could very well tell me that the fruit gives me wisdom and is desirable to look at.

Jude 3 is a book in the Bible. You cannot argue for anything from Jude 3 unless you already have a way to arrive at the Bible. This is usually the mistake Protestants make.

The argumentation assumes that you already know what Jude 3 means and you already know that the Bible is the Word of God. That is incorrect. Unless you first assent to the church, you don’t know if anything is the word of God.

We’re both Christians Eufronosia. We both accept Scripture. I’m not going to pretend that you’re agnostic every time Scripture is cited. Assenting to the church to tell me that Jude is the word of God is circular. What tells me that I must assent to the church? If you say the word of God, then I must already have a way to know that the word of God tells me to assent to the church. Which means I don’t need the church to tell me what the word of God is.

Now if you say that “Yes I accept the Church, but reading this passage after that seems to indicate the Church is wrong”. The issue with that is the fact that if you assent to the church, you must also assent to the fact that the Church is the final interpreter of Scripture.

I assent to the hierarchy in my church because Scripture tells me to. Which means the hierarchy is not the only interpreter of Scripture.

Does your church infallibly interpret it’s interpretation, or does it rely on you to interpret it fallibly?

As I said before, Christianity falls or stands on whether you can assent to the Church. Why? Because otherwise you cannot drive forward the authority of Christ to anything else. There is simply no way to justify anything as the word of God let alone Jesus is the son of God. Do you realize this important point?

No. I can read quite plainly that Jesus claims to be the only begotten, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who rose from the dead, not because he “tapped into the transcendant” but because He is the Son of God. I don’t need a modern hierarchy to tell me that.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Good.

Do you deny that Jesus delegated authority to Peter?

Sorry, I missed this post, stew. Yes, I do believe he delegated authority to Peter.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You’re missing the point of the relevancy of Paul’s veracity as it relates to this. I certainly don’t rely solely on his claim. It is, however, evidence. Again, you or I might die for our faith, but it would stand to reason that we wouldn’t if we objectively knew it never happened.

How do you know Paul died for the claim that HE SAW CHRIST AND WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY as opposed to just the claim of the Resurrection or just seeing Christ? I honestly don’t know how the fact that someone is willing to die for something gives them authority to teach about that something.

Practical reasoning does not determine dogma. Revelation does.

?? You cannot know what is revelation unless you can arrive at it through some reason. Then you have to assent by faith but you must first verify what you assent to is actual revelation. Your insistence and the use of the word Revelation is confusing in this sense.

We assent to Apostles and Apostolic Successors NOT because it is dogma at first. We just assent because it is the only thing you CAN DO if you want to learn about Christ.

Christ nor the apostles ever say this. I could reason my way into believing this but without revelaton confirming this, I would rather stick with Christ’s reasoning.

??? What do you think Apostles did when they replaced Judas? Does that Apostle have the same authority? So revelation as far as I can see indicates this happening many times. But you are looking at this from the view that you already know something.

As I said before, unless you first accepted the Church, you don’t have the Bible of anything else. All you have is “Christ rose from the dead”.

It is intuitive that if Christ sends his apostles with a particular charism and this charism is never said to apply to anyone after them, then I have no reason, much less a de fide one, to think it applies to anyone after them. It’s not a question of whether it is reasonable or not.

First, how is it intuitive that Christ gave any special charism to them to begin with? And what is a charism if you haven’t already read the Bible?

As far as practical reason goes, if you are trying to say that the authority of students certified by a teacher is a foreign model to you, I think you are really grasping at straws now. You will have to be super careful next time you visit a doctor or cross a bridge built by engineers because who knows if these are actually… doctors or engineers

It’s not a question of application. It’s a question of logical priority. God must choose to reveal Himself before my reason can process the information. Without revelation, I am relying solely on fallen reason, which could very well tell me that the fruit gives me wisdom and is desirable to look at.

Ok first, please stop undermining reason. If reason is that fallen, there is really no point in God even revealing himself. You know why? Because no one will figure out what he is revealing or whether he even has to reveal himself.

So anyway, no one is debating that God has to reveal himself first. BUT, you have to identify revelation from some logical means. You can’t just jump to conclusions that book X is divine revelation. That is absurd, right? In short what I am saying is that fallen as reason maybe, it would make the least sense to go and just accept things and ideas without reason.

At least the idea of accepting Apostles and their successors make logical sense. The idea of just accepting the Bible as the word of God makes zero sense.

We’re both Christians Eufronosia. We both accept Scripture. I’m not going to pretend that you’re agnostic every time Scripture is cited. Assenting to the church to tell me that Jude is the word of God is circular. What tells me that I must assent to the church? If you say the word of God, then I must already have a way to know that the word of God tells me to assent to the church. Which means I don’t need the church to tell me what the word of God is.

I thought I answered this a few times now. But let me explain again.

You assent to the church because it consists of the Apostolic successors. You assent to the Apostolic successors because of the natural and practical understanding that every man and woman has of the authority of a teacher being passed down to the student he certifies. In this case, the first teacher was Christ. Did you notice how I didn’t refer back to any “Word of God” claims?

I assent to the hierarchy in my church because Scripture tells me to. Which means the hierarchy is not the only interpreter of Scripture.

Now that is a good example of circular reasoning. In fact, the entire Protestantism is based on a circular reasoning i.e.

1. Scripture is the word of God. It is the word of God because it says so in the text.
2. Scripture is the Word of God. Scripture says my Church down the road is the Church. The Church says Scripture is the word of God.

All of the above is circular unlike the Catholic claim which grounds everything back in Christ and his authority.

Does your church infallibly interpret it’s interpretation, or does it rely on you to interpret it fallibly?

Now you are just stating buzz lines. As I said before, no Catholic or agnostic needs to have any idea of infallibility before moving on from the authority of Christ (proven from his death and Resurrection) to the Church.

 

[Eufrosnia]

(FROM PREVIOUS POST)

No. I can read quite plainly that Jesus claims to be the only begotten, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who rose from the dead, not because he “tapped into the transcendant” but because He is the Son of God. I don’t need a modern hierarchy to tell me that.

Sigh. You read it WHERE? In the Bible? How can you believe the Bible if you already haven’t accepted it as the Word of God? the claim that Jesus is the son of God is not directly verifiable in our earthly lives. Its something you assent to by faith. You can’t assent to something arbitrary as I stated before. So only way you can come to accept this truth by faith is if you first have reason to accept the Bible as the word of God. The only way you can accept the Bible as the word of God is only if you accept the Church!

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You lost me here Gaelic.

How can you say that the Apostles lay the foundation of the Church without delegating authority?

How is the Church to function? Why the Pastoral letters? Why the laying of the hands?

In your paradigm, the Church has no authority.

It’s not all or nothing Isaiah. You are stating that unless those the apostles entrusted the gospel to have the same authority as the apostles, then they have no authority. I don’t see any biblical or reasonable warrant for that.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s not all or nothing Isaiah. You are stating that unless those the apostles entrusted the gospel to have the same authority as the apostles, then they have no authority. I don’t see any biblical or reasonable warrant for that.

So what are you saying? They have some authority? Where are you getting it from?

Honestly, my issue here is that you are not thinking step by step. Imagine yourself in the position of an agnostic. How do you convince him/her to embrace Christianity?

Because right now, you are approaching everything from the perspective that you already know a very bold claim i.e. Bible is the Word of God. The issue here is that if you bothered to try and ground that belief in a reasonable way to Christ, you will realize that you need the Church. Instead, you act as if you have to arbitrarily pick a book to believe because that is what you have done.

Now like many Christians, I can try and consider that we have some common ground (Bible) and try to convince you Biblically. The issue here is that at the end of the day, it is my interpretation against yours. You have to decide which interpretation to accept. In your mind you will be thinking “Of course he interprets it that way because that is what he wants to prove”. This is why I am taking this different approach.

**I want you to ask yourself what is the next logical step to anyone who discovers/witnesses Christ’s death and resurrection given that they cannot learn about him first hand from Christ himself. **

To me, the answer to that question is to listen to the Apostles or the Apostolic Successors depending on which time frame I lived in.

Now you might be thinking “why don’t we just listen to the FIRST Apostles?”. The problem here is that you don’t know to what extent you must listen to them let alone what they taught. At that point, you might say lets just try to grab everything they wrote. But that too is problematic because we don’t have any (or at least all) original manuscripts. We only have things that are told by others that were by them. Oh wait!!! How do we trust those “others” (hint: Apostolic Successors) that these writings were indeed by them? Even more problematic. Not every book in the Bible contains the clause “This book is also an inspired word of God”. Oh… so then we don’t really even know its the word of God. As for internal consistency, just because a book references another book, it doesn’t mean its internally consistent. The OT refers to some books such as Jubilee which are not in the canon.

In the end, unless you accept the logical idea of authority been handed down from teacher to student and then to his student and so forth, you are left with absolutely nothing to turn to after the resurrection.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

How do you know Paul died for the claim that HE SAW CHRIST AND WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY as opposed to just the claim of the Resurrection or just seeing Christ? I honestly don’t know how the fact that someone is willing to die for something gives them authority to teach about that

I never said that his witness of Christ gave him the authority to teach. I am assessing the evidence that his claim is true. If his claim is true, then he has the authority to teach because Christ gave it to him. This has independent witness as well.

?? You cannot know what is revelation unless you can arrive at it through some reason. Then you have to assent by faith but you must first verify what you assent to is actual revelation. Your insistence and the use of the word Revelation is confusing in this sense.

If there is no revelation, then there’s no data to process. I never said reason was unnecessary. I said it’s secondary in logical priority. The apostles could not have reasoned that Christ rose from the dead unless he appeared to them.

We assent to Apostles and Apostolic Successors NOT because it is dogma at first. We just assent because it is the only thing you CAN DO if you want to learn about Christ.

The apostles teach about Christ. They never teach that their “successors” have the same authority as them when it comes to declaring what Christ has taught. If evidence cannot demonstrate that the apostles taught what the CC claims they taught, then I have no reason to think they taught it.

??? What do you think Apostles did when they replaced Judas? Does that Apostle have the same authority? So revelation as far as I can see indicates this happening many times. But you are looking at this from the view that you already know something.

Does the evidence demonstrate that what happened with Judas was ever repeated? Was it repeated when James was killed by Herod? Why was Judas replaced?

As I said before, unless you first accepted the Church, you don’t have the Bible of anything else. All you have is “Christ rose from the dead”.

Unless I first accept that Christ’s rising from the dead demonstrates that a church should even exist, then I can’t accept the church. You’re still ultimately saying I must accept the church and Scripture because the church says I must. Again, circular. I accept the Bible because I believe the Bible is an accurate record of what Christ said and did, which he confirmed by his resurrection. Given his resurrection is true, then I can accept what he said as authoritative. It also means I can accept what he said about the apostles and the church as authoritative, which means I can accept what the apostles said as authoritative, which means I can believe what the Old and New Testament Scriptures as authoritative.

As far as practical reason goes, if you are trying to say that the authority of students certified by a teacher is a foreign model to you, I think you are really grasping at straws now. You will have to be super careful next time you visit a doctor or cross a bridge built by engineers because who knows if these are actually… doctors or engineers

I didn’t say anything about practical reason. I said the practical reason you point to above isn’t referenced vis a vie apostolic succession apostolic Scripture. It is ironic that you expect me to accept the scenario you provide above, even though it’s just your fallible reason. Yet when Protestants do the same with interpreting Scripture, you scoff that it’s fallible.

Ok first, please stop undermining reason. If reason is that fallen, there is really no point in God even revealing himself. You know why? Because no one will figure out what he is revealing or whether he even has to reveal himself.

Do you believe reason is fallen?

So anyway, no one is debating that God has to reveal himself first. BUT, you have to identify revelation from some logical means.

I never said you didn’t have to. I said without the presence of the former, the latter is, at best, speculation. At worst, idolatry.

At least the idea of accepting Apostles and their successors make logical sense. The idea of just accepting the Bible as the word of God makes zero sense.

Now who said that?

I will have to respond to the rest in a separate post.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s not all or nothing Isaiah. You are stating that unless those the apostles entrusted the gospel to have the same authority as the apostles, then they have no authority. I don’t see any biblical or reasonable warrant for that.

This further loses me brother

If you don’t mind, What is your view of the delegated authority to the Church after the Apostles joined our Lord?

Please feel free to talk to me as if I was 6 years old . I really mean it thou , I wish… lol

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

(FROM PREVIOUS POST)

Sigh. You read it WHERE? In the Bible? How can you believe the Bible if you already haven’t accepted it as the Word of God? the claim that Jesus is the son of God is not directly verifiable in our earthly lives. Its something you assent to by faith. You can’t assent to something arbitrary as I stated before. So only way you can come to accept this truth by faith is if you first have reason to accept the Bible as the word of God. The only way you can accept the Bible as the word of God is only if you accept the Church!

No, it isn’t because I accept the church alone. As I’ve said numerous times on this thread, the church does factor into whether I accept Scripture. Just not solely.

And you havent even begun to demonstrate that its your church that I must accepted. As opposed to any of the other umpteenb claimants.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This further loses me brother

If you don’t mind, What is your view of the delegated authority to the Church after the Apostles joined our Lord?

Please feel free to talk to me as if I was 6 years old . I really mean it thou , I wish… lol

Ah to be six again!

The elders have the authority to teach the word, to discipline and to administer Christ’s sacraments.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

So what are you saying? They have some authority? Where are you getting it from?

Honestly, my issue here is that you are not thinking step by step. Imagine yourself in the position of an agnostic. How do you convince him/her to embrace Christianity?

Not by claiming that the Church is infallible.

Because right now, you are approaching everything from the perspective that you already know a very bold claim i.e. Bible is the Word of God. The issue here is that if you bothered to try and ground that belief in a reasonable way to Christ,

Which I did.

Now like many Christians, I can try and consider that we have some common ground (Bible) and try to convince you Biblically. The issue here is that at the end of the day, it is my interpretation against yours.

Which this piece of postmodern reasoning still holds true given your arguments. I’ll note that nothing you presented argument wise is church teaching. You are arguing for why your interpretation of biblical and historical evidence is true, as opposed to mine. We don’t throw up our hands and say we have no way to discern truth. We try to prove our positions. Show how each other’s interpretations are either correct or not correct. “That’s just your interpretation” proves zero.

 

[SteveVH]

No, it isn’t because I accept the church alone. As I’ve said numerous times on this thread, the church does factor into whether I accept Scripture. Just not solely.

And you havent even begun to demonstrate that its your church that I must accepted. As opposed to any of the other umpteenb claimants.

When you say “church” of which "church " are you speaking? The Baptist Church certainly didn’t determine the canon. And does it really matter how many claimants there are? You are more than welcome to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church (and EO, which were once the same) as to valid apostolic succession. Was it not a Catholic Council that met in Nicaea, made up of successors of the Apostles? Is it then unreasonable to suppose that this is probabaly the Church to which all must give assent in order to believe the Bible is the word of God?