Sola Scriptura . . .

[Tomster]

You wrote: “Since I wrote that article on the communion
myself, I kinda resent the accusation.”

Sorry if I offended you. Was just asking for simple answers since my eyesight is not good.

I will look up Albigensianism since that one is new to me. Thanks.

Do you have a more recent update on the Five Heresies beyond – “Hilaire Belloc names them in his book,* The Great Heresies*,
published in 1938”?

Thanks

www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[elation37]

MrS,
Thanks for sharing your insights into the Real Body of Christ.

Perhaps you would share with me and others:
Jesus’ instruction to Peter in John 21:15-17
that outline the duties of Peter.

Do you think that the RCC has fulfilled all three parts of the teaching in the scripture noted above? I have a problem in seeing how the RCC has fulfilled instruction #3.

I cannot find any commentary that details the instructions in the verses — many comment on the reconciliation part. Can you direct me to a source for #3?

Thanks

 

[I_Leatherman]

17 “Feed my sheep”… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.

 

[elation37]

Yes – in part to instruction #2 — but what I asked for was the specific instruction in #3

Do you understand that there are three distinct instructions in the verses in John 21:17-17?

Thanks

 

[toaslan]

elation, there is a whole long thread before this page!

elation37:

So, how does a believer know what to believe as to the scriptures?

An excellent example would be found in Acts 17:10-11. The Jews in Berea examined the writings of the OT prophets to see if what Paul was teaching could be backed-up by the scriptures.

Perhaps what every believer should do is to personally read and study the OT. This would give a foundation of understanding that could then be applied to reading and studying the NT scriptures.

Do you agree?

NO! Again with the poor old Bereans:

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp]

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected the messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

An inerrant Bible without an infallible interpretation is worthless.

 

[elation37]

So, are you saying that a believer cannot understand and apply the scriptures apart from the teaching of the RCC?

If so:
What part does the Holy Spirit do in a believer’s life?
Who has the Holy Spirit?
Who gifts people for service within the Church?

Thanks

 

[elation37]

To ILeatherman — your email link is not valid – my mail to you was returned — so here is the text of the message.

I am serious about finding additional information
on the instructions to Peter in John 21:15-17

As I stated, there are many materials on the
reconciliation part of the verses but have NEVER
found any materials beyond the Greek (especially for
instruction #3).

I always like to check out my conclusions with
the whole of scripture and the writings of other
believers.

Thanks,
Ed

So, if ILetterman or anyone else has information on Instruction #3 please post or send it to my working email

 

[I_Leatherman]

So, are you saying that a believer cannot understand and apply the scriptures apart from the teaching of the RCC?

Thanks

If you believe Christ when He gave His promise to His Church you could accept that the interpretation of the Scriptures began in Apostolic times.
You might say from when St. Phillip was transported to explain the Scriptures to the charioteer, or as St. Paul had to explain the Scriptures to the Bereans.
The RCC accepts and preserves the interpretation of Scripture as it has been passed on through history.

 

[elation37]

The question was:
So, are you saying that a believer cannot understand and apply the scriptures apart from the teaching of the RCC?

Not “interpretation of the Scriptures” – which means to me a knowledge of the Greek BUT understanding and applying the scriptures on a daily basis.

Thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

MrS,
Thanks for sharing your insights into the Real Body of Christ.

Perhaps you would share with me and others:
Jesus’ instruction to Peter in John 21:15-17
that outline the duties of Peter.

Do you think that the RCC has fulfilled all three parts of the teaching in the scripture noted above? I have a problem in seeing how the RCC has fulfilled instruction #3.

I cannot find any commentary that details the instructions in the verses — many comment on the reconciliation part. Can you direct me to a source for #3?

Thanks

I have always understood that to mean that the pope has the responsibility to teach sound doctrine.

But lest we misunderstand each other, here is the passage:

John 21:15-18
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

What do you, elation, understand to be the three instructions and duties?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you saying that only those that are members of the RCC are the True Church? ie – RCC is only True Church of Jesus Christ – all its leaders? All its current and past leaders? Clarify please.

There is one Body of Christ.

It is called the Catholic Church.

Some believers are formal members of the Catholic Church.

Others have been baptized and deserve the name “Christian” and so have a real, though imperfect" communion with the Body of Christ.

All of its leaders were obviously members of the true Church since they were all baptized into Christ, but they have not all been exemplary witnesses by their own lives and actions.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You wrote: “Since I wrote that article on the communion
myself, I kinda resent the accusation.”

Sorry if I offended you. Was just asking for simple answers since my eyesight is not good.

I will look up Albigensianism since that one is new to me. Thanks.

Do you have a more recent update on the Five Heresies beyond – “Hilaire Belloc names them in his book,* The Great Heresies*,
published in 1938”?

Thanks

Apology accepted.

No, I do not have an update…Modernism kinda brings us up to the present age, I think.

Secular Humanism might be worthy of consideration; I’d have to study it more closely to see if it qualifies and differs from Belloc’s Modernism.

 

[elation37]

In post #301 – you wrote:
I have always understood that to mean that the pope has the responsibility to teach sound doctrine.

So, you are only to take what the pope/s has/have had to say?

If so, are you responsible before God in “making sure of your salvation”?

Or is it that if you accept the teachings of the pope/s then he and the church will get you into heaven?

Please clarify,
Thanks

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question was:
So, are you saying that a believer cannot understand and apply the scriptures apart from the teaching of the RCC?

You might possibly interpret scripture accurately.

You might also get a perfect score on a difficult math test.

Neither outcome is guaranteed.

The Church does teach the doctrines of faith and morals infallibly, so it makes sense to check our understanding against the teachings of the Church to make sure we are on track.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

In post #301 – you wrote:
I have always understood that to mean that the pope has the responsibility to teach sound doctrine.

So, you are only to take what the pope/s has/have had to say?

If so, are you responsible before God in “making sure of your salvation”?

Or is it that if you accept the teachings of the pope/s then he and the church will get you into heaven?

Please clarify,
Thanks

Let’s expand from simply the pope as an individual and discuss the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[down_under]

Kujo13 gave up! Dont believe it. When I mentioned tap dancing I did not think he would do it so well. This is about sola scriptora not mary. We have been drug completely off track by someone who seems to have run out of steam for the argument. You did not respond to any one of 2 or 3 different posts. Presumably because you had nothing to say about refuting them specifically. Just more of the same general argument without much substance apperently. Can we get back on track please. You did not respond to 242 247 or 248 instead as soon as I made when by the by comment about mary after you mentioned it you launched right in marian arguments and we have never got back on track.

Now like I said without AN athorative interperator you cannot get to those things. A true understanding of them is totally out of your reach. You have your versus I have my versus and noone is to say who is write or who is wrong. I dont have to listen to you and you dont have to listen to me. and round and round we go. Confustion abounds there. With an athortative interperator apponted by christ in the flesh given athority real athority to answer these questions and keep us all on the same page now harmony is possible. now we can have certitude. Our athoratative interperator is the man now occupying the CHAIR OF PETER. a pharse you very well may never have heard. Sorry for that it is catholic common knowledge. So lets get back to the discussion at hand shall we. try answering any one of my posts would you. about the arguments and thoughts contained in them.

 

[toaslan]

hey, Down Under, too bad kujo is silent; frustrating! But you are right! Confusion abounds without the guarantee we have in our pope.

 

[MountainBoy11]

2 Thess 2:15 has shown that there is oral tradition which we should hold on to.

HI all…As I tried to catch up with the thread this evening, I am noticing the theme of 2 Thes 2:15. Let’s work on this a little.

“Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

This verse has nothing to do with the fallible interpretation the Catholic magisterium has imposed upon it.

Grammar:
Note, a quick scan of the Greek text (and my Greek knowledge is very limited) revealed that the Greek word for mouth is not even there! What we find is a genitive form of logos, literally translated “word of ours.” The Greek term for mouth is stoma, look for yourself, its nowhere to be found in that verse. (RV misleads by inserting mouth, NKJV seems to get it right as quoted above.)

Historical Context: (what did this mean to the original audience?)

Apparently, the Thessalonians had received a forged letter from a non-apostle. “We ask you not to be shaken in mind…by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us” (2 thes 2:2). THe whole church seemed upset by this (troubled 2:2), so Paul is writing to comfort them, by exhorting them not to listen to phony apostles. He explained that they could recognize true letters just by looking for the identifying marks of his own handwriting. “The salutation of Paul, with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle, so I write.” 3:17 Whether it was big letters or a special signature, Paul had some way to show, in writing, the authenticity of his letters. People have done this throughout history as with special wax seals or even our modern signatures or corporate letterhead.

His point to the Thessalonians is to stand fast in the teaching he had already given them in the first letter. “Do you not remember that while I was still with you I was telling you these things?” 2:5. The real thrust of what Paul is saying in 2:15 then is antithetical to what Catholics have thrust on the passage. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been passed around via second or third hand reports, but to receive as truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips! IN other words, Paul was correcting and warning the Thessalonians from that very error which Catholics teach…the tendency to be led astray by false authority and spurious tradition. He was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth claims by written marks. Sola Scriptura, thessalonians. Sola Scriptura.

This passage in no way suggests there are unwritten traditions that should be heeded and followed, but rather, to stick to what the apostles wrote, becuase there alone do we find true marks of apostolic authenticity.

Helped by John MacArthur.

 

[HailMary]

HI all…As I tried to catch up with the thread this evening, I am noticing the theme of 2 Thes 2:15. Let’s work on this a little.

“Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.”

This verse has nothing to do with the fallible interpretation the Catholic magisterium has imposed upon it.

Grammar:
Note, a quick scan of the Greek text (and my Greek knowledge is very limited) revealed that the Greek word for mouth is not even there! What we find is a genitive form of logos, literally translated “word of ours.” The Greek term for mouth is stoma, look for yourself, its nowhere to be found in that verse. (RV misleads by inserting mouth, NKJV seems to get it right as quoted above.)

Historical Context: (what did this mean to the original audience?)

Apparently, the Thessalonians had received a forged letter from a non-apostle. “We ask you not to be shaken in mind…by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us” (2 thes 2:2). THe whole church seemed upset by this (troubled 2:2), so Paul is writing to comfort them, by exhorting them not to listen to phony apostles. He explained that they could recognize true letters just by looking for the identifying marks of his own handwriting. “The salutation of Paul, with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle, so I write.” 3:17 Whether it was big letters or a special signature, Paul had some way to show, in writing, the authenticity of his letters. People have done this throughout history as with special wax seals or even our modern signatures or corporate letterhead.

His point to the Thessalonians is to stand fast in the teaching he had already given them in the first letter. “Do you not remember that while I was still with you I was telling you these things?” 2:5. The real thrust of what Paul is saying in 2:15 then is antithetical to what Catholics have thrust on the passage. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been passed around via second or third hand reports, but to receive as truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips! IN other words, Paul was correcting and warning the Thessalonians from that very error which Catholics teach…the tendency to be led astray by false authority and spurious tradition. He was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth claims by written marks. Sola Scriptura, thessalonians. Sola Scriptura.

This passage in no way suggests there are unwritten traditions that should be heeded and followed, but rather, to stick to what the apostles wrote, becuase there alone do we find true marks of apostolic authenticity.

Helped by John MacArthur.

So basically what you are saying is that for Sola Scriptura to be true for the Christian faith, we all need to know Greek now.

I noted this point in my short list one time

Sola Scriptura presupposes the following:

1. Access to the bible
2. Knowing how to read Greek/Latin/Aramiac
3. Leisure time
4. A list of books of the bible. To know what is inside the bible, you need to look outside the bible since there is not a list in the bible that says what books are in the bible
5. The printing press was not invented until 15th century - most people during this time did not know how to read
6. Scripture is easy to understand.
   “…In them there are some things hard to understand that
   the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction,just as they do the other scriptures” - 2 Pet 3:16

• Sola Scriptura was absolutely impossible before the NT was completed
• Before the 4th century, Sola Sciptura was theoretically impossible since the Canon was not determined (the Catholic Church determined it then at the great Council)
• Majority of today’s Christian Africans population are not literate - so what? They are damned to hell? No. They have the Church.
• The Ethopian in Acts did not understand the Scripture he was reading - this verse further highlights the arrogance of Sola Scriptura. The Ethopian did NOT say, “how can I unless the HOLY SPIRIT guides me” or something of that nature; “Then Philip opened his mouth” - The Ethopian was TAUGHT by Bishop Philip.
• The Church is the final authority (Matthew 18:15-18)

This Theory of Sola Scriptura is impossible.

 

[MountainBoy11]

I want to take a crack at a few moral arguments here , and show why I believe only so much progress can be made on a forum such as this,

The NT writers freqqently teach that the ability to understand Scripture rightly is more a moral and spiritual rather than intellectual ability (Grudem).

“The unspiritual man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor 2:14

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God 1 cor 1:18

Even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. nevertheless, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 cor 3:15-16).

If our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing 2 cor 4:3

To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom, but to those who are outside, all things come in parables…hearing they may hear and not understand Mark 4:11-12

If anyone wills to do his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on my own authority. Jn 7:17

Why do you not understand my speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. Jn 8:43-44

Those last two statements by the Lord Jesus are critical for us to understand. What he is saying is that the way you can tell the truth of a doctrine is by looking at the moral life of the teacher. The best indicator of authentic teaching is a holy life.

In settling the dispute with the immoral Pharisaic religious leadership, Jesus asks, "Which of you convicts me of sin? (Jn 8:46). Becaue Jesus lived a life of such incredible holiness and integrity, His teachings can be wholeheartedly embraced and trusted. Jesus could not be convicted of sin, the Pharisaic religious magisterium, however, could be. They were lovers of money (Lk 16:14), love the best places at feasts, best seats in the synagogues (23:6), fond of public salutations Mt 23:7, flaunt their tithes Mt 23:23, oppressive, Mt 23:4, get all dressed up (mt 23:5), hoist their teachings on others Jn 7:48, and Jesus absolutely denounces all this in Mt 23, Woe to you, hypocrites!

Moral hypocrisy exposes false teaching. Moral integrity authenticates true teaching. This is why the vast majority of qualifications for spiritual leadership are moral. 1 Tim 3 A bishop must be blameless, husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money (Peter said silver and gold have I none), not quarrelsome, rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?

When evaluating the doctrines in our church, we need to constantly be looking at the moral lives of our leaders and asking ourselves questions like: is my leadership blameless? A faithful husband? Greedy for money? A good father to his children? Because if he can’t lead his wife and family, how will he lead you?.

While I believe the Scriptures are written clearly and understandably (we write you nothing but what you can read and understand 2 cor 1:13) I also believe they will not be rightly understood by those who are unwilling to receive its teachings. THe Pharisees had it way wrong, not b/c they never studied it (they knew their Scriptures all right, and could argue from them!), but b/c they were unwilling to embrace it in full obedience and submission.

My point? I’m not saying the reason you don’t embrace Sola Scriptura is because you’re all damned Pharisees…let me just make that clear I’m just saying there’s only so far we can get with this format. Agreed? I will say, if we were in person and I found someone that didn’t embrace the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, the first thing I would do is look at their life.It’s what Jesus did, its what the NT teaches. As JC Ryle put it " Tell me what the Bible is to a man, and I will generally tell you what he is." And in this format, how much can we do that? There may be total heathens on here. And if there are, what is the point of arguing Sola Scriptura with a person who, by the testimony of their lifestyle, obviously doesn’t care about the BIble anyway?

Thoughts?