Sola Scriptura . . .

[MountainBoy11]

Let the dogpile resume! But, MB, while everybody is composing their polite but devastating replies, may I just meekly point out that you have yet to explain why there is no causal connection between this, your interpretation, and the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of protestant denominations .

Yes, I know youve been waiting for this. You probably leaned this one from Karl Keating. I will have to defer on this one to this link, and paste part of it here.

sfpulpit.com/2006/08/20/the-wrong-kind-of-unity/

“But the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).”

 

[Randy_Carson]

When Jesus was confronted by a misinterpreted text by Satan, he did not go running to the church (or Peter for that matter ) to help straighten out Satan’s misinterpretation. Rather, believing in Sola Scriptura as I have just defined it, Jesus correctly quoted an accurately interpreted Scripture.
“It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Mt 4:7.

He does this the whole way through satan’s deceptive trials. could he have called down a legion of angels to massacre the devil? sure. but he didn’t need to. the scripture alone is sufficient.

Jesus was God, so he didn’t need anyone to interpret scripture for him. However, the Church does go running to Jesus to interpret scripture. That is part of the infallibility thing.

But perhaps you have missed the fact that Jesus also quoted AUTHORITATIVE oral tradition:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Is there a reference to “Moses’ seat” somewhere in your Bible? Could you point it out?

You see, the Jews (Jesus included) recognized that the “seat of Moses” represented an authoritative office. Notice that Jesus commands his disciples to obey “everything they tell you” because of the legitimate authority that they held by virtue of that office.

Of course, Jesus did not hold the Pharisees and Teachers of the law in very high regard individually (calling them a brood of vipers, etc.). But he recognized and upheld their authority.

Three points:

1. Jesus’ reference to an oral tradition as legitimate supports the argument for other oral traditions to be viewed as binding.
2. The office of “Moses’ Seat” prefigures the concept of Apostolic Succession.
3. The example devastates the argument made by those who seek to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church because of the Crusades or the Inquisition or the Borgia popes, etc.

You must do what legitimate leaders tell you because of their God-given authority. And in Matthew 16 and John 20, there is no question that Jesus gave real authority to Peter and the Apostles of the Catholic Church who in turn passed the leadership on to the Bishops who lead the Church today.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[toaslan]

Michael! hey, what’s a little friendly fire–thanks.
MountainBoy–thanks, can’t do more now, will try tonight…

 

[MrS]

Thank you, Toaslan, and sorry guanaphore…just doing my best to doximazete as it says in your signature. No wonder there’s not many Protestants around here!

that could be because after spending some time here, they left to join RCIA

 

[MountainBoy11]

that it teaches that the Bible is the sole authority for all that Christians believe and practice. I don’t think he can do it.

THe clearest passage in Scripture on the sufficiency of Scripture as defined above is psalm 19.

Perfect…restoring the soul
sure…making wise the simple
right…rejoicing the heart
pure…enlightening the eyes
clean…enduring forever
true…righteous altogether
and in keeping them there is great reward.

it would be great to exposit this psalm, but space/time will not allow. In short, we see here that Scripture meets every need in life and is infinitely more precious than anything this world has to offer. Why the Catholic church, not unlike the Pharisees, have set the precious word of God aside to embrace the traditions of men as authority concerns me, as it did our Lord.

“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition…making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13).

 

[Randy_Carson]

THe clearest passage in Scripture on the sufficiency of Scripture as defined above is psalm 19.

Perfect…restoring the soul
sure…making wise the simple
right…rejoicing the heart
pure…enlightening the eyes
clean…enduring forever
true…righteous altogether
and in keeping them there is great reward.

it would be great to exposit this psalm, but space/time will not allow. In short, we see here that Scripture meets every need in life and is infinitely more precious than anything this world has to offer.

Amen! Catholics love that as we do all scripture.

But I thought you were going to show us where the Bible tells us that it alone is the “sole infallible rule of faith for the believer”.

“Sufficient” isn’t in your list above.

Why the Catholic church, not unlike the Pharisees, have set the precious word of God aside to embrace the traditions of men as authority concerns me, as it did our Lord.

We have no problem condemning traditions that set aside the commands of God. However, Catholics follow the COMPLETE word of God which also tell us:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition…making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13).

Perhaps you might stop making general accusations and provide specific evidence of the ways Catholics have done this?

Soon?

 

[Church_Militant]

When Jesus was confronted by a misinterpreted text by Satan, he did not go running to the church (or Peter for that matter ) to help straighten out Satan’s misinterpretation. Rather, believing in Sola Scriptura as I have just defined it, Jesus correctly quoted an accurately interpreted Scripture.
“It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Mt 4:7.

He does this the whole way through satan’s deceptive trials. could he have called down a legion of angels to massacre the devil? sure. but he didn’t need to. the scripture alone is sufficient.

That is one of the most convoluted interpretations I have ever seen.

1. The Church did not yet exist at the time. Jesus doesn’t even begin to talk about building His Church until much later on in (Matthew 16:18-19)
2. In fact, the apostles had not even yet been selected. Peter and his Andrew are not even called until after that event. (all in Matthew 4).

Jesus is the Word of God…how would your interpretation make the Bible…which only existed as the Old Testament at that time, a sole authority for Christian belief and practice?

Jesus also quoted non-canonical Jewish traditional writings and so did the apostles. Wouldn’t that men then that those sources are also inspired of God? Why are they not canon? By your logic, they should be.

Matthew quotes the following concerning where Christ was to be born, and since this refers to the knowledge of “all the chief priests and scribes of the people” (Chapter 2:4) it shows that they knew it too. 5: They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6: `And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.’” Can you show us where verse 6 is located in the Old Testament? If not, what inspired text is it from since the Gospel of Matthew says that it was spoken by a prophet?

Clearly scripture is not and never has been the sole authority…

 

[Church_Militant]

that could be because after spending some time here, they left to join RCIA

I can even name a few who are now members of the Tiber Swim Team.

 

[Church_Militant]

THe clearest passage in Scripture on the sufficiency of Scripture as defined above is psalm 19.

Perfect…restoring the soul
sure…making wise the simple
right…rejoicing the heart
pure…enlightening the eyes
clean…enduring forever
true…righteous altogether
and in keeping them there is great reward.

it would be great to exposit this psalm, but space/time will not allow. In short, we see here that Scripture meets every need in life and is infinitely more precious than anything this world has to offer.

That’s funny… I know that Psalm very well and love it very much…but I have never seen and still do not see one blessed thing in there that says, or even implies that the Bible, (and here it would have been talking about the Old Testament) is any kind of sole authority.

Why the Catholic church, not unlike the Pharisees, have set the precious word of God aside to embrace the traditions of men as authority concerns me, as it did our Lord.

“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition…making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13).

We are not discussing the place of Sacred Tradition in the Church, though we may touch upon it along the way. However, if you would like to open a separate thread where you can give us one Catholic tradition or practice that (in your opinion) contradicts the Word of God, we can get all into that as well. So far you have not even proved a case for Sola Scriptura that would make tradition an invalid source. Until you can do that, I would think that your other opinion is a moot point.

What we are doing here…and what you have so far, (again) failed to provide, is any place in the New Testament where we are told that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian belief and practice.

I understand that you are a recent Bible college grad. Congratulations! I do hope it wasn’t from any of the messed ones near where I live!

Surely you have a better case to be made here for this very fundamental belief of yours! You won’t see me referring to Karl Keating (I have read some of his stuff and I much admire the man.) because in this case we are talking about whether the Bible, and in particular the New Testament teaches Sola Scriptura. I don’t believe it does, and I am anxious to see your irrefutable proofs if you have any.

Will that take time? Certainly! Is it worth it? I think so. However, since it is your positive assertion that Sola Scriptura is scriptural, the burden of proof falls to you to make that case.
So, please, bring it on.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

P.S. To toaslan,
One of the 20 rules of combat is, “The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.” another is “Incoming has the right of way.”

 

[guanophore]

We are not discussing the place of Sacred Tradition in the Church, though we may touch upon it along the way. However, if you would like to open a separate thread where you can give us one Catholic tradition or practice that (in your opinion) contradicts the Word of God, we can get all into that as well.

there is already a thread running on that:

Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=58954

 

[MountainBoy11]

That is one of the most convoluted interpretations I have ever seen.

1. The Church did not yet exist at the time. Jesus doesn’t even begin to talk about building His Church until much later on in (Matthew 16:18-19)
2. In fact, the apostles had not even yet been selected. Peter and his Andrew are not even called until after that event. (all in Matthew 4).

Uhhh…exactly!?! Thank you for helping me out. Jesus had what he needed in Scripture alone before and without the church. Had he wanted to demonstrate the importance of the church in battling temptation and misinterpretation, perhaps He’d have waited until later in his ministry to providentially orchestrate this trial, and then cracked off a few hail mary’s or whatever along with a Scripture quotation.

WHich leads me to ask the question…since the Scriptures are so insufficient and lacking in your view, what exactly do you all believe the church adds? I mean, say this interaction between Jesus and Satan did take place after Mt 16 and the selection of the apostles, how would Jesus have handled it any differently?
Church Militant;2129276:

They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6: `And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.’”

Can you show us where verse 6 is located in the Old Testament?

MIcah 5:2.

 

[NotWorthy]

When Jesus was confronted by a misinterpreted text by Satan, he did not go running to the church (or Peter for that matter ) to help straighten out Satan’s misinterpretation. Rather, believing in Sola Scriptura as I have just defined it, Jesus correctly quoted an accurately interpreted Scripture.
“It is written, you shall not tempt the Lord your God.” Mt 4:7.

He does this the whole way through satan’s deceptive trials. could he have called down a legion of angels to massacre the devil? sure. but he didn’t need to. the scripture alone is sufficient.

And yet it is Jesus who instructs us to “Take it to the Church” in Matthew… interesting.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

I can even name a few who are now members of the Tiber Swim Team.

The “Tiber Swim Team” must have made it across on one of those rare days when the surf wasn’t’ up. Normally people are “hanging ten” (it means you have ten toes draped over the surfboard’s edge as you roar down a giant wave)… to get away from Rome.

 

[MountainBoy11]

. I don’t believe it does, and I am anxious to see your irrefutable proofs if you have any.

Will that take time? Certainly! Is it worth it? I think so. However, since it is your positive assertion that Sola Scriptura is scriptural, the burden of proof falls to you to make that case.
So, please, bring it on.

You’ve asked for this, and I’ve given it. See my post at 11:14 am.

I think, Church MIlitant, that you are reading more into the Protestant position of Sola S. than Protestants really mean by it.
What I have been saying this whole time is that everything necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in teh Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.

So to qualify our position for you:

1. I am not arguing that the church -both the people of God and the ministerial office- is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. My pastor has been my greatest help when it comes to interpreting the Scriptures for my salvation and edification. But that doesn’t mean I have to have my pastor. I do not have to have the church. However, I do have to have the HS (Jn 14:17).
2. I am not saying believers cannot be edified by things outside of Scripture. I am mountainboy. In fact, I just got back from a beautiful hike in the mtns a half hour ago, where I was deeply enjoying the glory of God in creation, as the Psalmist did in the first part of Psalm 19, which I referenced above. “The heavens declare the glory of God.” We call this general revelation. We call Scripture special revelation.

A guy posted earlier asking me what the Scripture says about stem cell research, arguing against sola scriptura. this misunderstands the protestant position. can teh medical community contribute things helpful to life? Sure. Does the world have stuff beyond Scripture to offer? Sure, I can’t better my golf swing by reading Romans. But we don’t need anything beyond Scripture.

What Protestants are saying is that today Scripture contains everything necessary to know the truth of God for salvation.

We say this b/c the NT teaches this.

Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughy equipped for every good work. [detailed exegesis available on request].

Everything needed for salvation and xn living is contained therein. It is clear and thorough on these matters. For those who believe otherwise, chances are good they do not have the HS to help them come to this understanding. We don’t need the church, the pope, mary, etc. Although those things may be helpful (well, the church at least), but Scripture alone is sufficient.

Hopefully these qualification help you better understand the Protestant position.

 

[MountainBoy11]

Please respond to the following statement:

ROME IS GUILTY OF SOLO ECCLESIA.

Roman theologian John Eck
“The scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church.”
-Enchiridiaon of commonplaces, p.13

“I am tradition”
-Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, 1870

The magisterium alone has the ability and right to interpret Scripture (CC 85, 100, 939)

Scripture is to be interpreted in teh sense in which it has been definded by teh magesterium (113, 119)

etc, etc…

 

[guanophore]

Uhhh…exactly!?! Thank you for helping me out. Jesus had what he needed in Scripture alone before and without the church. Had he wanted to demonstrate the importance of the church in battling temptation and misinterpretation, perhaps He’d have waited until later in his ministry to providentially orchestrate this trial, and then cracked off a few hail mary’s or whatever along with a Scripture quotation.

Actually, He did! He said that when their were disputes between believers, that the church would be the arbitor.

Matt 18:15-18

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

and then cracked off a few hail mary’s or whatever

I find this comment very disrespecful of the Lord, as well as His Blessed Mother.

WHich leads me to ask the question…since the Scriptures are so insufficient and lacking in your view, what exactly do you all believe the church adds? I mean, say this interaction between Jesus and Satan did take place after Mt 16 and the selection of the apostles, how would Jesus have handled it any differently?

You misunderstand, MountainBoy. No one is saying that the scripture lacks sufficiency. What is being said is that they were never intended to be “all sufficient”. They are designed to go with Sacred Tradition which wrote, protected, and translated them up to this day.

 

[MountainBoy11]

Question (perhaps new thread if you want, but see my justification for its relevance here first ??)

Do readers of Scripture need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in order to properly view and interpret it?

Relevance to Sola S:

If the HS is needed for proper interpretation, unbelievers cannot accurately view and interpret Scripture.
therefore, an improper view/interpretation of Scripture might be evidence of unbelief.
therefore, before we can discuss biblical views/ interpretations, we need to discuss and evaluate true conversion.

Anybody with me???
Will post further thoughts after seeing your thoughts…

 

[Church_Militant]

The “Tiber Swim Team” must have made it across on one of those rare days when the surf wasn’t’ up. Normally people are “hanging ten” (it means you have ten toes draped over the surfboard’s edge as you roar down a giant wave)… to get away from Rome.

I hear this hooey from time to time, but I sure can’t tell from the number of people who keep joining my parish and the packed out cathedral when those coming into the church all show up.

Keep dreamin’ Nancie…there is no “giant wave”.

Feel free to provide stats to prove this is anything more than your wishful thinking.

 

[Church_Militant]

MIcah 5:2.

That’s not an exact quote…

 

[Genesis315]

Feel free to provide stats to prove this is anything more than your wishful thinking.

I’ll ptovide some stats that shows the flow is going the other way :

From the Catholic Encyclopedia(1909) “Statistics of Religions”, Table VIII:newadvent.org/cathen/14275a.htm

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 0.900

From Encyclopedia Britannica’s “Adherents of All Religions by Six Continents - Mid- 1995”: zpub.com/un/pope/relig.html

Ratio of Catholic/Non-Catholic Christians: 1.008

As we can see, about a hundred years ago there were more non-Catholic Christias than Catholics. Now there are more Catholics than non-Catholic Christians.