J
Janet_S
Guest
Here’s an article by James Akin that addresses the practical problems of sola Scriptura:
cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm
cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm
- Status
N
neophyte
Guest
I didn’t mean to sound antagonistic. Just reminding you that it’s good to look at both sides of the coin.
C
Contarini
Guest
I agree with this in the sense that only those things can be asked of us as a matter of faith. However, charity and good order place further requirements on us as members of the Church. I presume Pastor Hensley thinks we should obey speed limits and other government regulations–Church regulations are just as binding.
I agree with this.
I don’t think it needs an infallible interpreter, but it’s nonsense to say that it “clearly explains itself.” Someone has to interpret the Bible, and it is obviously possible for intelligent and pious people to misinterpret it.
All sorts of fallible authorities “bind the conscience” in the sense that one ought to obey them unless they contradict a higher law–parents and governments are the two obvious examples.
And furthermore, when the Church is interpreting Scripture correctly it does bind the conscience infallibly.
This is pernicious nonsense because we do not and must not read the Bible alone–we read it with the Church both local and universal. There is indeed a certain necessity of private interpretation, in the sense that in the end we have to discern that (at the very least) the Church is not blatantly contradicting Scripture (and I would argue that this is necessary even on the premises of Catholicism, but that’s another debate). But it is by no means an “absolute right.” The Bible as interpreted by the Church binds the Christian conscience.
Edwin
O
obedient2truth
Guest
It is about authority. Where do you think the Bible came from? It didn’t drop out of the sky. It wasn’t uncovered under a rock. Jesus didn’t tell the Apostles to go and write what I taught you and five it to the people so they can interpret for themselves. He told the Apostles to go and preach the gospel. What did the early Christians do before the Bible was determined to be the inspired Word of God…which by the way was the Catholic Church who declared that the Bible you read is be the inspired Word of God.
Jesus told Simon that his name is Peter, the rock, and on this rock I will build my Church, not on this rock I will build my churches. Do you believe there is one, true, visible Church Jesus Christ established. If so, where is that Church? What does the Bible say that what is the pillar and bulwark of truth?
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit!
Straw man argument and completely irrelevant. You are not suggesting, are you, that Jesus did not intend the writing of the NT, or that it is not divinely inspired? I thought not. So you’re playing a silly game with words.
You presumably mean, before all the books of the NT were determined to be in the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles frequently refer to the Scriptures.
It was not the Catholic Church as it exists today–the Church that accepts 21 Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra papal infallibility. So again, this is an irrelevant argument.
Yes.
Wherever Christ is proclaimed, the Word is preached, and the Sacraments are administered.
Edwin
O
obedient2truth
Guest
Opppps!
O
obedient2truth
Guest
Why do you believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why should anyone?
You know Jesus’ intentions? That is impressive. Answer me this…Did Jesus intend to build over 30,000 churches? Where is it in Scripture that Jesus instructs the Apostles to write the New Testament?
Jesus refers to Old Testament.
The Catholic Church as Jesus founded does exist today? Is not infallible? If that is so, then Jesus lied. He promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against her with the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Sacraments? Oh…that is whole other thread. How can Christ’s Church be wherever Christ is proclaimed when all these wherevers are contradicting each other?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery (i.e., Sacrament; the Liturgy of the Mass)… In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [the Christian] message to a mere term.” (Basil the Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
I
Ignatius
Guest
There is no evidence that it is true!
C
Contarini
Guest
A bunch of reasons–chiefly the fact that the Church (via my Protestant family, which is one reason I cannot accept your doctrine of the Church) has told me so; but the fact that God speaks to me through Scripture confirms that the testimony of the Church is true. Like St. Augustine, I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the Universal Church had not moved me.
So you do not believe that the writing of Scripture was according to Jesus’ will? If you do believe it, then you are simply quibbling, and you are bordering on blasphemy.
Irrelevant. Never mind that the figure is ridiculous and the term “churches” is ambiguous.
Why is that relevant? You don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. I’ve made it clear in what sense I do and don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. So why do you keep throwing this stock argument at me, when we both agree that Scripture is divinely inspired and was written according to Christ’s intentions?
I know that. But you said “the Scriptures” simply, not “the New Testament.” And St. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture. What is clear in the NT is that Scripture is divinely inspired and is authoritative. We depend on the historic witness of the Church to know exactly which books are in Scripture and which aren’t–and if there is some dispute around the edges of the canon, we can live with that. We can live with a lot more uncertainty than you think. God isn’t going to refuse to hear our prayers because we aren’t certain about the divine inspiration of IV Maccabees.
That is not what I said. I said that the Catholic Church of the early centuries (when it determined the canon) did not have 21 Ecumenical Councils. Nor did it have 39 Articles, or the Westminster Confession, or (God be thanked!) the Baptist Faith and Message. No church existing today can claim without qualification to be exactly the same as the Catholic Church that determined the canon–and yet we are all heirs of that Church (some more closely than others).
This does not imply infallibility. Why people keep repeating these tired and untenable arguments is beyond me. You can’t in a million years prove that one doctrinal error amounts to the gates of hell prevailing against the Church. You are declaring this arbitrarily because it suits your case.
How can anything be the way it is? What kind of question is that? Do you expect Jesus to act according to rules invented by you? Jesus is wherever He wants to be. He doesn’t ask for your permission and He probably doesn’t care much whether or not it makes sense to you.
You find plenty of rude people on this board who ask “how can the Catholic Church be Christ’s Church if” and then name some scandal in your Communion. Why is your question any different?
Edwin
T
Tomster
Guest
And which sacraments are you referring to?
C
Contarini
Guest
Any sacraments
Principally the two Sacraments of the Gospel: baptism and Eucharist. Those are the two that must be present for the Church to exist.
Edwin
T
Tomster
Guest
Any others?Any sacraments
Principally the two Sacraments of the Gospel: baptism and Eucharist. Those are the two that must be present for the Church to exist.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Any others what? I said that baptism and Eucharist are the two that must be present for the Church to exist. Do you mean, do I think that there are any others? Sure. The traditional seven for starters. I don’t think “sacraments” is a closed set of terms that must be enumerated. A sacrament is any physical means that God uses to convey His grace. Some sacraments are more specifically set forth as central to our faith than others. (In other words, I wouldn’t make the same distinction your tradition makes between sacraments and sacramentals.)
Edwin
T
Tomster
Guest
Where is that in the Bible?
T
Tomster
Guest
Where in the Bible does it say that baptism and the Eucharist must be present for the Church to exist?Any sacraments
Principally the two Sacraments of the Gospel: baptism and Eucharist. Those are the two that must be present for the Church to exist.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Baptism and Eucharist are in the Bible. Do I need to show you the passages where Jesus tells the Apostles to baptize, or where Scripture says baptism is salvific, or where baptism is compared to Noah’s Ark, etc.? Do I need to show you where Jesus tells the Apostles “do this in remembrance of Me,” or where Paul links the breaking of the bread to our unity as the Body of Christ, indicating that this act is constitutive of the Church?
Or are you just playing a little game and wasting both our time?
Edwin
T
Tomster
Guest
Where are the other five sacraments in the Bible?
T
Tomster
Guest
I did not say anything about sacramentals.
C
Contarini
Guest
I will tell you if you will assure me honestly that you do not think they are in the Bible. If you in fact believe them to be in the Bible, then you are being rude and disingenuous and you need to stop pestering me.
Edwin
- Status