Sola Scriptura

[fulloftruth]

I was thinking as I was listening to a James White / Tim Staples debate. A thought came to me. If one were to read the scriptures perfectly, and with clear interpretation as internded by God, it would lead him to the Church. As I am writing this James White is saying that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the church is to preach the word as God gives it to her as the Bride of Christ. He thinks that this claim supports his idea of SS. I would say that that is what the church is doing and has done for 2000 years. He just does not agree with the churches interpretations. He has put his own interpretation over that of the church. Isn’t that warned about in scripture?

 

[Christy_Beth]

Check the first chapter of Galations. :bible

 

[Catholic29]

He has put his own interpretation over that of the church. Isn’t that warned about in scripture?

It sure is! Here it is answered by a Catholic Answers apologist forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11458

 

[SojournerOf78]

fulloftruth:

I was thinking as I was listening to a James White / Tim Staples debate. A thought came to me. If one were to read the scriptures perfectly, and with clear interpretation as internded by God, it would lead him to the Church. As I am writing this James White is saying that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and that the church is to preach the word as God gives it to her as the Bride of Christ. He thinks that this claim supports his idea of SS. I would say that that is what the church is doing and has done for 2000 years. He just does not agree with the churches interpretations. He has put his own interpretation over that of the church. Isn’t that warned about in scripture?

LOL…I had almost this same thought as I was listening to a Sola Scriptura argument being made by a poster…I realized that his high view of the Scriptures authority in the life of the believer NECESSITATED an entity that would be able to interpret it, for what good is it to have a document that leads you to your destination that you cant interpret?

25,000 denominations that claim Sola Scriptura and cant agree with eachother prove the necessity of a Holy Spirit inspired entity to interpret the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.

The harder they struggle against the Church the more they prove that the Bible wouldnt work without it.

 

[brianberean]

LOL…I had almost this same thought as I was listening to a Sola Scriptura argument being made by a poster…I realized that his high view of the Scriptures authority in the life of the believer NECESSITATED an entity that would be able to interpret it, for what good is it to have a document that leads you to your destination that you cant interpret?

You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC. How did you come to the conclusion that the RCC is the one true church? If you are a cradle catholic, how do you conclude that the RCC is the correct “infallible” interpreter of Scripture? Why not the Eastern Orthodox or Mormons or JWs?

25,000 denominations that claim Sola Scriptura and cant agree with eachother prove the necessity of a Holy Spirit inspired entity to interpret the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.

Where do you come up with 25,000? What proof do you have that all 25,000 “can’t agree with each other”? What is your source (evidence)?

Brian

 

[La_Chiara]

brianberean:

You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC. How did you come to the conclusion that the RCC is the one true church?

Faith. The short answer is because we have faith. We Catholics don’t have to re-interpret the Bible because we have faith and we have our Church.

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

Faith. The short answer is because we have faith. We Catholics don’t have to re-interpret the Bible because we have faith and we have our Church.

Mormons have faith in their church. JWs have faith in their church. Muslims have faith in Allah. This is not a convincing answer.

If this “short answer” is your only answer, then we are all on the same ground. Faith should, at least in part, be based on evidence that leads to logical (or at least probable) conclusions. That’s why Paul offered arguments (evidence) from the Scriptures to the Jews and gentile nonbelievers instead of just saying “have faith in Jesus”. That’s, at least in part, why Jesus and the Apostles performed miracles like curing the sick and raising the dead.

I have faith in God the Father, Jesus Christ our savior and the Holy Spirit. I have faith in the promises made to believers in God’s Word (God-breathed Scripture). That’s why I don’t need to follow the clearly unScriptural teachings of the RCC, the Mormons, or the JWs.

Brian

 

[La_Chiara]

And we Catholics have faith in our Church. The Catholic Church is in the one true church of Christ, founded by Christ himself. All other Christian churches can only trace their history to Christ through the Catholic Church. And Catholic Christianity is THE most scriptural of all Christian religions. God bless you in your searchings. I pray you will one day see the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church.

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

And we Catholics have faith in our Church. The Catholic Church is in the one true church of Christ, founded by Christ himself. All other Christian churches can only trace their history to Christ through the Catholic Church. And Catholic Christianity is THE most scriptural of all Christian religions. God bless you in your searchings. I pray you will one day see the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church.

And I pray that one day you will consider offering evidence to back up your assertions on web boards that exist for that purpose instead of offering arbitary fluff and condescension.

Brian

 

[Christy_Beth]

Brian

Take a chill pill, ok? Do you have evidence that the RCC is** NOT** the one true church? All other churches came centuries **AFTER **the RCC. Christ founded a church. And the RCC is the only one that can trace it’s roots to that. All others have either come out of the RCC, or out of these “offshoots.”

25,000 different denominations? There are at least that many different protestant churches. You can’t even say “baptist” without qualifying it. First, you have the American baptists, and then there are the Southern baptist. Then there are all the independant baptists. Same goes with all the other denominations. And there are many more independant churches that claim no such ties.

BTW, you are coming across fairly strong. Too strong, really. We don’t mind debating this stuff, but please calm down, Ok?

 

[TheTruth]

La Chiara:

Faith. The short answer is because we have faith. We Catholics don’t have to re-interpret the Bible because we have faith and we have our Church.

that ONLY means that there are 25001 interpretations…it just so happens that your interpretation includes a ton of stuff that doesn’t appear ANYWHERE in the bible.

 

[TheTruth]

Christy Beth:

Brian

Take a chill pill, ok? Do you have evidence that the RCC is** NOT** the one true church? All other churches came centuries **AFTER **the RCC. Christ founded a church. And the RCC is the only one that can trace it’s roots to that. All others have either come out of the RCC, or out of these “offshoots.”

25,000 different denominations? There are at least that many different protestant churches. You can’t even say “baptist” without qualifying it. First, you have the American baptists, and then there are the Southern baptist. Then there are all the independant baptists. Same goes with all the other denominations. And there are many more independant churches that claim no such ties.

BTW, you are coming across fairly strong. Too strong, really. We don’t mind debating this stuff, but please calm down, Ok?

ALL of your assertions are offered as truths, but with NO INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE proof. The only proof you can assert for your statements are church teachings…that makes them suspect.

That’s like saying that Hyundai makes the best cars…Hyundai Motor Coproration said so.

The fact remains that catholics have asserted that they are the only true church…it is therefore their responsibility to offer irrefutable proof of this assertion, something that has yet to be accomplished…

 

[David_Brown]

TheTruth:

ALL of your assertions are offered as truths, but with NO INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE proof. The only proof you can assert for your statements are church teachings…that makes them suspect.

That’s like saying that Hyundai makes the best cars…Hyundai Motor Coproration said so.

The fact remains that catholics have asserted that they are the only true church…it is therefore their responsibility to offer irrefutable proof of this assertion, something that has yet to be accomplished…

On the other hand, to prove Scripture Alone from Scripture alone would be equally “suspect” by your logic. And showing Scripture Alone by appealing to “INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE” [sic] evidence contradicts the “Alone” of “Scripture Alone.”

By the way, “irrefutable proof” is a very high standard and not the only one or even the most common standard in most kinds of proof. Why that standard? Are the proofs for God’s existence “irrefutable”? Which ones are beyond all possible doubt?

 

[TheTruth]

David Brown:

On the other hand, to prove Scripture Alone from Scripture alone would be equally “suspect” by your logic. And showing Scripture Alone by appealing to “INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE” [sic] evidence contradicts the “Alone” of “Scripture Alone.”

By the way, “irrefutable proof” is a very high standard and not the only one or even the most common standard in most kinds of proof. Why that standard? Are the proofs for God’s existence “irrefutable”? Which ones are beyond all possible doubt?

It wasn’t my intention to prove sola scriptura…it was my intention to show that the catholic system is quite simply no better or for that fact different than sola scriptura…and you quite appropriately pointed that out, and helped to make my point (Thank You). Simply, there is no irrefutable INDEPENDANT proof of either point, it therefore comes down to faith not proof.

Just like so many of the catholic traditions for which there are no scriptural support for…you have faith that the men that interpreted and made them up did it right…but no real proof…except for self created citations

 

[David_Brown]

TheTruth:

It wasn’t my intention to prove sola scriptura…it was my intention to show that the catholic system is quite simply no better or for that fact different than sola scriptura…and you quite appropriately pointed that out, and helped to make my point (Thank You). Simply, there is no irrefutable INDEPENDANT proof of either point, it therefore comes down to faith not proof.

Just like so many of the catholic traditions for which there are no scriptural support for…you have faith that the men that interpreted and made them up did it right…but no real proof…except for self created citations

Thank you. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I saw your post and the topic of the thred and didn’t read the other posts. Small addition: While there might not be proof in a strong sense (and the requirement for “independence” would work against other fields of inquiry such as science, but that is another topic), the demand for such external proof can lead to problems. If we justify X by the independent evidence of Y, then we have to justify Y by the independent evidence of Z, and so on. (This is the “third man” problem Plato had with the Forms and their relation to individuals.)

There is a weaker sense of rationality in which the consistency of a belief (with accepted beliefs) is rational. Would consistency with Scripture and tradition (traditional interpretation) be enough to give a less-than-absolutely-certain reason? Would it be rational to accept such a reason? The qualification of “catholic traditions for which there are no scriptural support for” seems to imply that “scriptural support” counts or could count as “independent proof” or the kind of proof you are looking for. If so, then the question of interpretation enters. If not, I am not sure of what the qualification of traditions you mentions means–must they be explicitly, beyond all possible interpretations, speak of something?

There is one important difference between the Catholic position and the Sola Scriptura position. The Catholic position allows something outside the text itself. Perhaps that is not a relevant difference but it is a difference.

 

[TheTruth]

There is a weaker sense of rationality in which the consistency of a belief (with accepted beliefs) is rational.

Would consistency with Scripture and tradition (traditional interpretation) be enough to give a less-than-absolutely-certain reason? Not if the tradition were used as both the premise and the conclusion…that doesn’t follow proper cognitive processes.

Would it be rational to accept such a reason?

No.

The qualification of “catholic traditions for which there are no scriptural support for” seems to imply that “scriptural support” counts or could count as “independent proof” or the kind of proof you are looking for.

Well, since that is what catholics seems to seek to SUPPORT sola scriptura, it seems logical that one who doesn’t believe ‘tradition’ would seek the same level of proof that catholics seeks.

If so, then the question of interpretation enters. If not, I am not sure of what the qualification of traditions you mentions means–must they be explicitly, beyond all possible interpretations, speak of something?

Let’s face the clear facts…tradition is catholic interpretation. Just like sola scripture is protestant interpretation…logic follows that sola scripture is a protestant tradition…

There is one important difference between the Catholic position and the Sola Scriptura position. The Catholic position allows something outside the text itself

Catholic teaching granted itself something outside the texts…the catholic church created the tradition that created the allowance for something outside of the texts…seems self-serving from a purely logical standpoint.

Perhaps that is not a relevant difference but it is a difference.

 

[brianberean]

Brian

Take a chill pill, ok? Do you have evidence that the RCC is** NOT** the one true church? All other churches came centuries **AFTER **the RCC. Christ founded a church. And the RCC is the only one that can trace it’s roots to that. All others have either come out of the RCC, or out of these “offshoots.”

Ugh…? We were talking about a fairly specific epistemological subject of how one would come to believe the RCC is the one true church without using private interpretation…care to take a swing? I think the question I asked could be easily answered in a paragraph, while the one you opened with would take dozens of pages. Care to stick to the subject?

RCs do like to use the “tracing our roots back to the apostles” argument, however you’d be hard pressed to find even one early church father that held all the beliefs required by your church today. Evangelicals don’t make such claims, so we don’t have to shoulder the burden of offering evidence that we can “trace our roots back”.

We beleive that each generation is responsible for itself, even if previous generations made mistakes. Check 2 Kings 22-23 for a biblical example of going back to the “book of the covenant” after previous generations had gone astray.

BTW…the Pharisees and Sadducees could “trace their roots” back to Abraham. Did that do them any good?

25,000 different denominations? There are at least that many different protestant churches. You can’t even say “baptist” without qualifying it. First, you have the American baptists, and then there are the Southern baptist. Then there are all the independant baptists. Same goes with all the other denominations. And there are many more independant churches that claim no such ties.

I see you are using the 25,000 denomination statistic also, maybe you can provide me with a source?

Many of those independent churches you site get along just fine and some agree on everything. You see, outside the RCC and other mainstream denominations there are many churches that simply aren’t concerned with lining up under a single hierarchel governmental body. So many of these churches are not affiliated with others, not because they can’t agree or don’t have unity, but because they simply aren’t concerned with that style of governmental structure.

BTW, you are coming across fairly strong. Too strong, really. We don’t mind debating this stuff, but please calm down, Ok?

says the lady waving the baseball bat at me…

Brian

 

[La_Chiara]

brian–You are going to have to agree to disagree about sola scriptura and your other fundamentalist Protestant beliefs on these forums. Especially since you do not have an open mind and have no interest in learning about Catholicism. And especially when the arguments that you and the others make are the same old tired arguments that we have heard a million times before. Karl Keating wrote a wonderful book on the subject called “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. Have you read it? You should, it is excellent. Peace.

 

[David_Brown]

TheTruth:

Not if the tradition were used as both the premise and the conclusion…that doesn’t follow proper cognitive processes.

Let’s face the clear facts…tradition is catholic interpretation. Just like sola scripture is protestant interpretation…logic follows that sola scripture is a protestant tradition…

Catholic teaching granted itself something outside the texts…the catholic church created the tradition that created the allowance for something outside of the texts…seems self-serving from a purely logical standpoint.

If the argument is taken syllogistically, then it is not only proper but required that if tradition is used as the major or minor term it must be in the conclusion.

Assuming “tradition is catholic interpretation” and “sola scripture is protestant interpretation” and therefore a “protestant tradition,” as you say, I fail to see the point. The Sola Scriptura Protestant cannot add tradition to Scripture without contradiction, since the authority of tradition is part of what they reject. On the other hand, right or wong, the Catholic Church accepts the authority of tradition and therefore does not contradict itself when appealing to tradition (again this is true whether or not the Church or tradition is right or wrong). There seem to be different logical and epistemological positions.

The argument about “self-serving,” if taken seriously would undermine Catholic, Protestant, and everyone else. Are you taking a generally skeptical position? As for “a purely logical standpoint” see above for a purely logical difference.

 

[brianberean]

La Chiara:

brian–You are going to have to agree to disagree about sola scriptura and your other fundamentalist Protestant beliefs on these forums. Especially since you do not have an open mind and have no interest in learning about Catholicism. And especially when the arguments that you and the others make are the same old tired arguments that we have heard a million times before. Karl Keating wrote a wonderful book on the subject called “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”. Have you read it? You should, it is excellent. Peace.

More fluff and condescension with no attempt to provide a meaningful response. I’m starting to detect a pattern…

Brian