Sola Scriptura...

[MicahBurke]

How did it work in the Old Testament? I dunno, why is that relevant?

You’re assuming the modern understanding of the papacy. Regardless, Basil’s statement stands. Also, to whom to Christ hold the Pharisee’s to, their own scholars and a supposed magisterium or to the Scriptures?

 

[VociMike]

You’re assuming the modern understanding of the papacy. Regardless, Basil’s statement stands. Also, to whom to Christ hold the Pharisee’s to, their own scholars and a supposed magisterium or to the Scriptures?

Since my question was

Now, does it work? Does everybody who practices SS gain the whole counsel of God? The way it looks to us Catholics is that everybody finds a different counsel in scripture, and not just in details but in the deepest fundamentals. Even to the point where some of that counsel is declared by other Christians to be non-Christian

and since you answered as above, I must assume that disagreement over the deepest fundamentals of Christian belief is OK. Yes or no? Is it OK to find in Scripture that the Trinity is a false teaching? Is it OK to find that Jesus is not God? Is it OK to find that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist?

 

[bookgirl32]

Rome vs Protestantism

Just an fyi, Rome is the capital of Italy, not a church.

 

[MicahBurke]

Since my question was and since you answered as above, I must assume that disagreement over the deepest fundamentals of Christian belief is OK. Yes or no? Is it OK to find in Scripture that the Trinity is a false teaching? Is it OK to find that Jesus is not God?

Certainly not, again… sola Scriptura does not deny outside authorities such as creeds and confessions, however it makes Scripture the final authority. When one person, with no training, claims an ahistorical viewpoint or previously declared heretical viewpoint, it is not “ok” at all.

Within the different denominations of the Reformed tradition there exists confessions that dictate the normative beliefs within said denomination. (Specifically the WCF, LBCF, Three forms of unity, 39 articles, Book of Concord, etc.)

You’ll find, for example, that they all believe alike on the “deepest fundamentals of Christian belief”, as defined by the early creeds of Christendom. When someone denies some aspect said confession they may be placed under discipline until they recant or are asked to leave. (Sound familiar?)

But these confessions also go further in defining what that specific denomination believes. Generally these denominations will work together in evangelism and the like.

This of course requires these denoms to be faithful to their confessions and the word of God. There is, of course, in all of Christendom the problem of liberalism, post-modernism and other heretical notions that are by no means unique to Protestantism (surely you will acknowledge that.)

Is it OK to find that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist?

When one says “Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist”, what do they mean? Where in Scripture is transubstantiation or the Lutheran view of in, with and under found? That Christ is “truly present” is apparent from Scripture, but to claim that the bread and wine turn into flesh in blood is not. There is no way that one can, from the grammar, context and content of Scripture define clearly the doctrine of “real presence” as Roman Catholics know it, however there is clear evidence from same means that Christ is God, the Spirit is God and that the Father is God and but they are one and yet three.

Therein lies the difference. Protestants are not “100% Tradition Free!”, no matter what some might suggest, rather, they rest final authority for all matters of faith and salvation on the Word of God alone.

Finally, as a counter question: Is it “ok” to believe that God knows the future intimately, or just that he has knowledge of all possibilities? If either view is “ok” within the Roman Catholic church, why does the same church deny the right for other aspects of the faith? Is this an example of a “secondary issue” that Rome allows private interpretation on?

 

[bookgirl32]

"…But sola scriptura does not teach what you are saying it teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss its truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.”

Um, this is pretty much what I thought Sola Scriptura was, thanks for the clarification though. I still don’t see where the Bible supports this, however. I totally understand what the quote means above. But by the definition of sola scriptura in this quote, you’re placing a fallible tradition (by your definition) above the only infallible source you claim that you have.

 

[MicahBurke]

Just an fyi, Rome is the capital of Italy, not a church.

Protestants and even Roman Catholic apologists often refer to Roman Catholicism as “Rome”. If you take issue with this, take it up with Catholic Answers, Catholic Legate, and other Roman Catholic apologetics organizations. Feel free to call my church Geneva or London.

 

[VociMike]

Certainly not, again… sola Scriptura does not deny outside authorities such as creeds and confessions, however it makes Scripture the final authority. When one person, with no training, claims an ahistorical viewpoint or previously declared heretical viewpoint, it is not “ok” at all.

Training? Is training now the final authority? Is history the final authority (if so then you’re 1500 years off the mark).

And who declares a viewpoint heretical? Councils? Are councils the final authority?

Just what the heck is the final authority?

So if scripture is the final authority, and if one finds in scripture that the Trinity is a false doctrine, how can you possibly claim that to be, not just a false understanding, but an un-Christian understanding? Creeds and confessions and councils and history can’t possibly be the answer, since they are all subservient to scripture.

 

[bookgirl32]

Protestants and even Roman Catholic apologists often refer to Roman Catholicism as “Rome”. If you take issue with this, take it up with Catholic Answers, Catholic Legate, and other Roman Catholic apologetics organizations. Feel free to call my church Geneva or London.

That’s fine, I’ll take it up with them too. I’m just taking it up with you right now. I think it’s somewhat offensive, and so do many others. I’m politely asking you to stop

 

[MicahBurke]

Um, this is pretty much what I thought Sola Scriptura was, thanks for the clarification though. I still don’t see where the Bible supports this, however. I totally understand what the quote means above. But by the definition of sola scriptura in this quote, you’re placing a fallible tradition (by your definition) above the only infallible source you claim that you have.

Untrue. Since the Bible is not “fallible”.

Man may be fallible, but Scripture is not.

The fallibility of man applies to Rome as well, since the church is made up of men and women. Thus relying on sinful men, the Roman pontif, or magisterium as a sole infallible rule is sure to lead one astray. One may wish to deny this on the basis of papal infallibility etc, but what good is said infallibility if it is neither used nor agreed upon when it was used. Again, if you want to claim papal or magisterial infalliblity as your reason for accepting the authority claims of Rome, you’ll have to show when, where and how that infallibility has provided clear guidance where sola Scriptura has not.

Since there is no infallible list of infallible decrees, nor an infallible commentary on Scripture, what good is infallibility? Why should I believe some Roman Catholic apologists private interpretation of Matthew 16 versus that of a majority of early church fathers deny that very claim? Has the infallible pontif ruled on it? If not… why!?

 

[MicahBurke]

That’s fine, I’ll take it up with them too. I’m just taking it up with you right now. I think it’s somewhat offensive, and so do many others. I’m politely asking you to stop

Bookgirl, I cannot call the sky “pink” just because you wish it. Its historic use extends well beyond my usage here in this forum. I can guarantee that it is used by other Roman Catholics on this forum as well.

You may choose not to read my posts, you may even choose to mention them to the board managers, however, given the continual usage of the term by Roman Catholics, apologists and laymen alike, I find no reason I should cease to use the term simply because you don’t like it.

 

[bookgirl32]

Untrue. Since the Bible is not “fallible”.

Man may be fallible, but Scripture is not.

The fallibility of man applies to Rome as well, since the church is made up of men and women. Thus relying on sinful men, the Roman pontif, or magisterium as a sole infallible rule is sure to lead one astray. One may wish to deny this on the basis of papal infallibility etc, but what good is said infallibility if it is neither used nor agreed upon when it was used. Again, if you want to claim papal or magisterial infalliblity as your reason for accepting the authority claims of Rome, you’ll have to show when, where and how that infallibility has provided clear guidance where sola Scriptura has not.

Since there is no infallible list of infallible decrees, nor an infallible commentary on Scripture, what good is infallibility? Why should I believe some Roman Catholic apologists private interpretation of Matthew 16 versus that of a majority of early church fathers deny that very claim? Has the infallible pontif ruled on it? If not… why!?

But you’re not basing your belief on the Bible, since sola scriptura, as you defined it, is not in there. You’re basing it on an interpretation of scripture by men.

 

[bookgirl32]

Bookgirl, I cannot call the sky “pink” just because you wish it. IIts historic use extends well beyond my usage here in this forum. I can guarantee that it is used by other Roman Catholics on this forum as well.

You may choose not to read my posts, you may even choose to mention them to the board managers, however, given the continual usage of the term by Roman Catholics, apologists and laymen alike, I find no reason I should cease to use the term simply because you don’t like it.

I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’ll just note that you could call it by it’s true name, you for some reason just don’t want to, and leave it at that.

 

[MicahBurke]

Training? Is training now the final authority? Is history the final authority (if so then you’re 1500 years off the mark).

Again, no, Scripture is the final authority. Sola Scriptura does not suggest that those who cannot read or understand basic grammar can divine what Scripture says.

And who declares a viewpoint heretical? Councils? Are councils the final authority?

No, Scripture is the final authority.

Just what the heck is the final authority?

Scripture.

So if scripture is the final authority, and if one finds in scripture that the Trinity is a false doctrine…

Fallacy. One cannot read a math textbook today and declare “2 + 2 = 5!” Words have meaning, and the meaning of the text of Scripture is not unclear in the evident issues of the faith, this is why the ancient councils ruled as they did on the basic issues of the faith. This is why we accept the perspicuity of Scripture, Scripture is not so mystical, so gnostic in meaning that we need secret keys and the like to determine its meaning. Thus one cannot come up with some “novel” idea from Scripture.

…how can you possibly claim that to be, not just a false understanding, but an un-Christian understanding? Creeds and confessions and councils and history can’t possibly be the answer, since they are all subservient to scripture.

They most certainly are subservient to Scripture, but where they agree, we agree with them. Again I believe this is the position of the early church and is in direct opposition to the modern view of Rome.

 

[MicahBurke]

I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’ll just note that you could call it by it’s true name, you for some reason just don’t want to, and leave it at that.

You want me to write “Roman Catholic Church” every time?

Seriously? Even when Roman Catholic apologists don’t? Why do you insist on holding others to standards that you do not apply to yourselves?

 

[MicahBurke]

But you’re not basing your belief on the Bible, since sola scriptura, as you defined it, is not in there. You’re basing it on an interpretation of scripture by men.

How so? If men are in agreement with Scripture…?

Why do you not address my questions in reply?

 

[bookgirl32]

You want me to write “Roman Catholic Church” every time?

Seriously? Even when Roman Catholic apologists don’t? Why do you insist on holding others to standards that you do not apply to yourselves?

It’s not a big deal, I just told you that I found it somewhat offensive, and reminded you that there are other terms you could use. I can’t and don’t want to force you to do anything.

 

[bookgirl32]

How so? If men are in agreement with Scripture…?

Why do you not address my questions in reply?

Because I’d like to get this taken care of first, and it is also the topic of the thread. I just have yet to find where the Bible states that the scriptures are the ultimate authority, or the only infallible one.

 

[MicahBurke]

Because I’d like to get this taken care of first, and it is also the topic of the thread. I just have yet to find where the Bible states that the scriptures are the ultimate authority, or the only infallible one.

I could list the Scriptures for you, but on what basis could you judge whether they stated what I believed or not, without using private interpretation?

If you did come upon said verse, what would compel you to believe it in opposition to Roman Catholicism?

Do you want me to post a list of verses so we can wrestle over them? And if we did wrestle over them, what good would it do since your claims about said verses wouldn’t be authorized?

 

[bookgirl32]

I could list the Scriptures for you, but on what basis could you judge whether they stated what I believed or not, without using private interpretation?

So you’re freely admitting here that you base your belief on what you believe to be an infallible interpretation, not on the exact words of scripture itself?

 

[MicahBurke]

So you’re freely admitting here that you base your belief on what you believe to be an infallible interpretation, not on the exact words of scripture itself?

So is this the tactic? Dodge every question posed and ask another? We could play all day at this… but to what end. If you feel like actually conversing with me, I’m up for it, but if you intend on a one way conversation without the slightest bit of give, sorry, I’ve got better things to do.