Sola Scriptura

[hlgomez]

Brian,

It seems you’re avoiding the issue about the Eucharist. Once again, is your belief in the Eucharist the same with the Scriptures, the Early Fathers and the Catholic Church?

Shalom,

Pio

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

As you know, Catholics believe that an infallible authority is necessary to assure that one’s understanding of scripture is not in error. Protestants believe such an authority is unnecessary. Why do they (you) feel it unnecessary in light of the conflicting and contradictory interpretations of the infallible scriptures held by sola Scripturists? It would seem that, at the least, each individual interpreter of scripture would need to consider himself an infallible authority in interpreting scripture, which would make scripture NOT the only infallible authority.

Hope that makes sense.

In Christ,
Nancy

That may make sense in theory, but based on that logic, I think it also makes sense to recognize that Catholics are in the same boat.

First off, how many verses of Scripture has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted?

Secondly, at best, Catholics only push the “infallibility” problem one step back. Individual Catholics, including priests and bishops, are admittedly fallible. Therefore, each fallible Catholic has to fallibly interpret each “infallible” dogma of the Catholic Church. Catholics also disagree on many things.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

It seems you’re avoiding the issue about the Eucharist. Once again, is your belief in the Eucharist the same with the Scriptures, the Early Fathers and the Catholic Church?

Shalom,

Pio

I’ve discussed the subject of the Eucharist ad nauseum on Catholic and Protestant boards in the past. Also, the time I have available for posting is barely enough to keep up with the subjects I’m already discussing. Thanks for the offer, but I’ll pass at this time.

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

First off, how many verses of Scripture has the Catholic Church infallibly interpreted?

Very, very few. The Church is much more likely to reject a particular interpretation than to promote one.

Secondly, at best, Catholics only push the “infallibility” problem one step back. Individual Catholics, including priests and bishops, are admittedly fallible. Therefore, each fallible Catholic has to fallibly interpret each “infallible” dogma of the Catholic Church.

Huh???

Catholics also disagree on many things.

The differing opinions of individual Catholics has no bearing on the truth.

 

[brianberean]

fulloftruth:

I am starting to wrap my mind around Brians point of view, and it is quite shallow, and i say that with love. This idea that Catholic Teachings are as cryptic as scripture and need further interpretation or that because someone is a cradle Catholic and has not been freed of our enslavement from Catholic thought proccesses, shows agreat deal of insight into the imaturity of the author of such claims, and again I say this with pity and love.

Thank you for your love and pity

I don’t view Scripture as “cryptic”. I basically agree with Augustine here:

“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,–to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

I thank God for the gift of faith, and the ability to humble myself to the authority that Christ put over me. Poor Brian thinks that Scripture is the only infallable authority, yet he cannot answer the question of how Scripture could be an infallable authority at all unless you know for sure that it has been compiled auhtentically and properly the way God wanted it assembled.

This “problem” didn’t concern the many early church fathers who placed their trust in Scripture before any canon was “infallibly” set by the Catholic Church and it doesn’t concern anyone with a proper understanding of sola scriptura.

And since all of Apostles were dead and Christ was in heaven when it was assembled, then there must be another infallible authority on earth, otherwise scripture could not have been infallibly assembled.

Based on your assertion, how was it possible for a Jew living 50 years before Christ to know that 2nd Chronicles or Isaiah were inspired Scripture?

Bamm !!! I also noticed how Brian was .another threader and said “does not present a problem for Sola Scriptura” and then proceeded to go on to the next thought without stating how it did not present a problem.

The reason it does not present a problem is because the canon doesn’t have to be “infallilby” set for us to place our trust in the infallibility of God’s Word. Why does the fact that the Catholic Church “infallibly” claimed itself to be “infallible” give you such comfort? The Mormons and JWs can claim the same type of false comfort.

Where is the Church that has the power of binding and loosing,not only on earth but in heaven too. Sounds like an awful lot of Authority,and seein how nothing unpure and imperfect can be in heaven, then this church must be guarded from binding error on earth.

History has shown that there is no pure and perfect religous institution on earth.

And is the only church that teaches all of the truth to every race and origen of people on earth.

If you claim the Catholic Church teaches “all of the truth” then what does it teach concerning Genesis? Is Genesis literal? What about predestination?

Having a book as your final authority leaves the world with no authority to say this is heresy and this is truth.

When you change the word “book” in this statement to “God’s Word” then your statement appears ignorant.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Very, very few. The Church is much more likely to reject a particular interpretation than to promote one.

First you claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture, then you admit the Catholic Church has “infallibly” interpreted “very, very few” verses. Don’t you see the contradiction?

Huh???

You have an “infallible” canon of faith: Scripture, ex cathedra papal decrees, “infallible” council rulings.

We have an infallible canon of faith: Scripture.

You have to, with your fallible brain, interpret your “infallible” canon of faith.

We have to fallibly interpret ours.

The differing opinions of individual Catholics has no bearing on the truth.

Exactly! Same with differing opinios of individual Protestants.

Brian

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

First you claim that we need an infallible interpreter of Scripture, then you admit the Catholic Church has “infallibly” interpreted “very, very few” verses. Don’t you see the contradiction?

Not at all. I think you confuse infallibility with inspiration. The Church is not inspired to teach everything that is true. She is protected against teaching error. That is, what she DOES teach cannot be wrong.

You keep bringing up Genesis. Good example. The Church is not inspired to teach every truth that could ever be gleened from Genesis. That would be inspiration. Rather, whatever it is that she DOES definitively teach about it cannot be wrong. That is infallibility. While it may appear a subtle difference, it’s really quite large.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

You have an “infallible” canon of faith: Scripture, ex cathedra papal decrees, “infallible” council rulings.

We have an infallible canon of faith: Scripture.

I’ve never heard of a “canon of faith” containing the three things you have listed. I’d like to learn about it though. Where’d you get it from?

We do have the “deposit of faith”, which is everything that God has ever revealed to mankind. All of that can be found in God’s word whether in writing (Scripture) or word of mouth (Tradition). Strictly speaking it’s all part of Tradition since, at one time, it was all word of mouth, but that’s for another thread.

We have to fallibly interpret ours.

What good is the infallibility of scripture if it can’t be infallibley understood?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Exactly! Same with differing opinios of individual Protestants.

Are you sure it’s exactly the same? Catholics who who hold dissenting opinions tend to believe that truth is relative. That’s why they can say what’s true and what’s not, because truth is whatever they believe it is. I’ve not noticed that sort of relativism among Protestants.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Philthy]

Brian -

I cant tell you how honored and excited I was to see that you read and responded to my post #231! Honest! Now I feel like one of the “big boys” You up for a little more?!

Philthy: … It’s not that you can’t interpret Scripture correctly, its that you can’t know that you’ve interpreted it correctly without the RCC.

Brianberean: So how can you know you’ve interpreted the official rulings of the RCC correctly? Everything you know is interpreted through your fallible brain, right? And I would hardly call the Catholic Church “objective”.

Philthy: I think this is a bit desperate, no? The rulings are written in our native language, in our lifetime and edited expressly for the purposes of clarification - unlike Scripture. And the ruling body which produces the text is still around to answer any questions one might have - unlike Scripture.

Brianberean: Basically the definition of sola scriptura is: Scripture is our sole infallible authority. Not our sole authority, just our sole infallible authority.

Philthy: Now we’re going in circles because this definition doesn’t refute what I said earlier(Post 231) about SS, so let me restate them with your new definition:

1. Scripture doesn’t explicitly claim that it is our sole infallible authority - so the very claim is not scriptural and contrdradicts itself. Not a good start!

2.Scripture doesn’t define it’s components for us. The cannon was decided outside of scripture. Having Scripture as our sole infallible authority, we have no scripture to go by. Again, not a small problem.

3.Scripture expressly calls the “church of the Living God” as the “pillar and foundation of Truth” (1Tim 3:15). Now the concept of Scripture as our sole infallible authority is actually violating scripture.

I know you are intellingent and that the above points are well presented, so I have to assume that you believe that during the earliest years of the Church, Sola Scriptura was not yet functioning but that it became the rule of faith later? Like after the canon was set? Am I wrong on this? I mean how could it be the infallible authority before the canon was set?

Continued on next post…

 

[Philthy]

Brianberean: 1 Tim 3:15 (in context) is referring to a local church. Also, being the “pillar and foundation of Truth” is not the same as being “the Truth” or being “infallible”.

Philthy: First off, there is only one church, one Bride of Christ - you know this better than I do. This baloney about speaking to the “local” church is retro-fitting the verse into your theology. You are correct in the difference between Pillar and Foundation vs the Truth, but that does nothing to support your view. Being the Pillar and Foundation of the truth means being the entity that SUPPORTS AND UPHOLDS the truth and prevents it from crumbling into chaos. That is the ongoing function of the (Magisterium of) the Church. It still leaves us with the Church interpreting the truth of the Truth.

Brianberean: Your “proof” is for a lot less than 25,000 denominations.

Philthy: Some things you should just leave alone Brian. I didn’t say all denominations would be on there - I expressly stated that the site was “for starters”. You didn’t actually look very far into the site though, but only glanced at the list on the main page. Within each of the categories listed there were a dozen or so breakoffs of each group. Would it really matter if I had a list of 25000 vs. 5000? If its important I’ll get you the list - otherwise the original point remains valid.

Brianberean: The Catholic Church concedes that there are different valid interpretations of Scripture. For instance whether Genesis is literal or not or predestination. So are the rest of your claims valid concerning the Catholic Church?

Philthy: Let me tighten the rope for ya a little! The church may allow more than one intrpretation for a particular passage, but that should not be confused with allowing any interpretation that conflicts with Catholic teaching - like sola scriptura: not allowed! Are the rest of my claims valid? I think so buddy, I’d like to think you’ll eventually see it that way also…

Thanks again for your thoughtful responses

 

[Aris]

I’ve been reading through the thread.

1. It should be stated by Brian why he believes that the Bible is the sole infallible source of Truth? How did he know?
2. Is Brian aware that there was no Bible to speak of for 70 years after the death of Christ? The books in the New Testament were just being written at this time. There was only the Old Testament as Scriptures. Does Brian mean he only believes in the Old Testament?
3. Is Brian aware that final collection of the New Testament was decided by a Church Council in the 4th century hundreds of years after the last Apostle died, which by his definition is a fallible source of authority? Does that mean he believes the Bible that was declared the as error free by persons whom he supposses to be fallible in all matters?
4. If there was no Bible for 400 years, what then was the basis of Truth? Brian would probably know the answer but would not believe.