Sola scripture from satan

[justinthemartyr]

Originally Posted by moondweller

"Matt. 18:15-17 has to do with exercising discipline within a local church assembly. When it says “tell it to the church,” it means the whole, local, church assembly and together, as a church, they are to shun the offender.

It’s not about the infallibility of high ranking officers (Bishops) or their sovereign authority over the people. That concept comes form “sola ecclesia,” not the Scriptures."

---

JUSTINTHEMARTYR responds:

Moondweller, this is outrageous reasoning.

If you look at the passage, it DOES first go to the one who sinned against you, serious sin.
THEN you go to other Christians in the Body of Christ.
THEN you go to the Church which can authoritatively clarify that this sin is certainly a sin and that the person is in the wrong and the authoritative church exclaims the excommunication of that person if they do not hear the Church. there is no excommunication when they fail to hear the members of the Body of Christ, but only after they fail to hear THE CHURCH.

If it were the way you are purporting, then that person who was kicked out by the body of believers could just hop on over to the next church in the phone book.

he could do that for the rest of his life, but what is even more rediculous is that the offender could just go and start his own church where that sin is not a sin because his interpretation of scripture says it is not. That is the result of sola scriptura.

sola scriptura is from satan.

 

[Deconi]

There are no such things as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola ecclesius!

Where I come from, “Sola” means ‘to escape,’ ‘to run away,’ ‘to evade!’

That seems more applicable to the novelty of “Sola Everything!”

 

[moondweller]

w_stewart:

Wrong. The Church + the Tradition + the Bible.

You didn’t answer the question as to whether or not we all choose our authority.

You said your authority is:

The Church: (“the Church” defined here as “the Magesterium” of the RC church).

Tradition: (as defined by your Magesterium, a.k.a. “the Church”)

Bible: (Only those few passages “infallibly” interpreted by your Magesterium. The rest await an “infallible” interpretation by “the church.”)

All this, to me, amounts to “sola ecclesia.”

 

[moondweller]

b_jostb:

My prior sounded much more biting than I intended. Please don’t take me wrong. I’m not trying to pin you down or stick my finger in your chest. OK? OK.

OK. Although I didn’t really take it in a “biting” manner.

Just to clarify, we as Catholics assign infallibility to the Holy Spirit. That is Who is infallible.

I agree.

It is the Spirit that teaches the faithful and He does so through the teaching office of the Church.

This, of course, is an assertion and a doctrine promoted by the “teaching office” itself. It’s this same “teaching office” that Catholics refer to as “the Church” in respect to its only “infallible” governing authority in things concerning doctrine (and dogmas), morals, and the interpretation of Scripture. This is “sola ecclesia,” is it not?

The Spirit has defined the canon of Scripture and how He did that was through men. The process of the canonization of Scripture was a human one working in cooperation with the Spirit. I think we can agree to that, can’t we?

I don’t agree that the Spirit Himself defined the canon of Scripture. Men ratified what was already accepted by the churches. I would agree with you that He inspired them to be written. He being the divine author behind the human authors and by this fact alone rendering them inherently inerrant. I touched on this in a previous post if you want to go back and read it.

The teaching office of the Church has interpreted only about a dozen verses from the whole canon, that’s it.

If Matt. 18:15-17 is not one of the “dozen” verses, then how is it you can refer to it, with confidence, as a “proof-text” for the sovereign authority of your Magesterium (what you define as “church” in that passage)?

When we Catholics look at Scripture we do so through the lens of the teachings of the Church. If someone wants to look at it a different way, then go ahead. But there is no logical argument that comes from, “My view is better than your view,” if there is no view that is absolute.

And there are, according to you, only about a dozen verses you, as a Catholic, can look at through the lens of your teaching authority. And therefore only those dozen or so should be considered as part of your “infallible tradition.”

So, among the various communities that relies on the Bible as their final authority there can be no unity if there is even a hint of discord in thought.

But your Magesterium has only “infallibly” interpreted a dozen or so verses of Scripture. Therefore, a Catholic’s interpretation, no matter what his clerical rank, on all the remainder of Scripture is no better than mine or even another Catholic’s. Right?

There can be consensus, there can be agreement, there can be civility and charity in the disagreements, but not unity.

But since your Magesterium has infallibly interpreted only a dozen or so Bible verses, then there can be no “absolute” unity (better rendered “conformity”) in your denomination either.

But all this argumentation is based on the notion (even dogma) that laymen cannot (nor should try to) understand the Scriptures through their own studies, prayer and reliance upon the Holy Spirit to guide them.

 

[Metaron]

OK. Although I didn’t really take it in a “biting” manner.I agree.This, of course, is an assertion and a doctrine promoted by the “teaching office” itself. It’s this same “teaching office” that Catholics refer to as “the Church” in respect to its only “infallible” governing authority in things concerning doctrine (and dogmas), morals, and the interpretation of Scripture. This is “sola ecclesia,” is it not?I don’t agree that the Spirit Himself defined the canon of Scripture. Men ratified what was already accepted by the churches. I would agree with you that He inspired them to be written. He being the divine author behind the human authors and by this fact alone rendering them inherently inerrant. I touched on this in a previous post if you want to go back and read it.If Matt. 18:15-17 is not one of the “dozen” verses, then how is it you can refer to it, with confidence, as a “proof-text” for the sovereign authority of your Magesterium (what you define as “church” in that passage)?And there are, according to you, only about a dozen verses you, as a Catholic, can look at through the lens of your teaching authority. And therefore only those dozen or so should be considered as part of your "infallible tradition."But your Magesterium has only “infallibly” interpreted a dozen or so verses of Scripture. Therefore, a Catholic’s interpretation, no matter what his clerical rank, on all the remainder of Scripture is no better than mine or even another Catholic’s. Right?But since your Magesterium has infallibly interpreted only a dozen or so Bible verses, then there can be no “absolute” unity (better rendered “conformity”) in your denomination either.

But all this argumentation is based on the notion (even dogma) that laymen cannot (nor should try to) understand the Scriptures through their own studies, prayer and reliance upon the Holy Spirit to guide them.

This is a complete mischaracterization of Catholic thought and teaching. Laymen can interpret the Bible in their own way, just so long as it does not contradict or suggest anying opposing defined dogmas. So is the case with Catholic escatology. Rulings by the Magisterium and *ex cathedra *Papal Writings are based on the whole of Sacred Tradition, oral and written, and therefore this is completely understandable and acceptable to anyone an open mind.

 

[justinthemartyr]

moondweller.

to a degree it is sola ecclesia, in that the Church is the body of Christ and He is the Head. One head, One Body.

He is not seperate in any way from His Church and her perfect teachings as given by Him to His apostles. It is the apostles doctrines which weare to hold to.

Jesus only instituted one church upon cephas(peter,rock) john 1:42

One church, One Faith, One mind, One Body, One baptism, One Lord called to be one as He and the Father are one, perfectly.

 

[Metaron]

moondweller.

to a degree it is sola ecclesia, in that the Church is the body of Christ and He is the Head. One head, One Body.

He is not seperate in any way from His Church and her perfect teachings as given by Him to His apostles. It is the apostles doctrines which weare to hold to.

Jesus only instituted one church upon cephas(peter,rock) john 1:42

One church, One Faith, One mind, One Body, One baptism, One Lord called to be one as He and the Father are one, perfectly.

Yeah. He said “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Basically saying, “You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.” Peter, the leader of the Church and the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[w_stewart]

Giving up all rights to personally interpret Scripture is part of “sola ecclesia.” So is assigning infallibility to men. Sola Scriptura retains the authority of God’s Word.

And the people who declared the authority of the Bible as God’s Words were not infallible? So what if they were mistaken in declaring that the Bible is infallible?

 

[w_stewart]

You didn’t answer the question as to whether or not we all choose our authority.

You said your authority is:

The Church: (“the Church” defined here as “the Magesterium” of the RC church).

Tradition: (as defined by your Magesterium, a.k.a. “the Church”)

Bible: (Only those few passages “infallibly” interpreted by your Magesterium. The rest await an “infallible” interpretation by “the church.”)

All this, to me, amounts to “sola ecclesia.”

Sola ecclesia is a new invention whose definition is yet to be given. I am hoping you can give that at the soonest.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Church: (“the Church” defined here as “the Magesterium” of the RC church).

Tradition: (as defined by your Magesterium, a.k.a. “the Church”)

Bible: (Only those few passages “infallibly” interpreted by your Magesterium. The rest await an “infallible” interpretation by “the church.”)

Hi

We Muslims would have it in this order :

Quran - The pristine Word of GodAllahYHWH.
**The Acts of the Prophet **](Sunnah) that Muhammad performed which he was commanded by GodAllahYHWH in Quran and he set his companions on them with continuous performance on daily, mothly or yearly regular intervals without break.
The Sayings of the Prophet (Hadith) which were collected much later after intelligent verifications. These must not contradict Quran, if they contradict, then they are to be interpreted in a way that they become in confirmity with Quran or else these are not to be followed.

This is just for comparison and infromation.

Thanks

 

[moondweller]

This is a complete mischaracterization of Catholic thought and teaching. Laymen can interpret the Bible in their own way, just so long as it does not contradict or suggest anying opposing defined dogmas.

…by your Magesterium. Which amounts to sola ecclesia.

 

[moondweller]

moondweller.

to a degree it is sola ecclesia, in that the Church is the body of Christ and He is the Head. One head, One Body.

The “body of Christ” is made up of ALL true believers. Not just your Magesterium.

He is not seperate in any way from His Church and her perfect teachings as given by Him to His apostles. It is the apostles doctrines which weare to hold to.

The word “her” in the above sentence cannot refer to the whole “body of Christ,” otherwise you should be holding to my interpretation of the Scriptures as well. “Her” is your Magesterium, your teaching authority, which you refer to as “the Church.” Must not a Catholic adhere to all the teachings of your Magesterium (a.k.a. “the Church”)? Which amounts to sola ecclesia.

.

 

[moondweller]

And the people who declared the authority of the Bible as God’s Words were not infallible?

No man is infallible (save the Theoanthropic Man).

So what if they were mistaken in declaring that the Bible is infallible?

The Scriptures don’t become the written “Word of God” by men declaring them so. They are inherently so because they’re inspired by the Holy Spirit (inspired meaning “God-breathed”). It is God who is infallible, therefore His Word is inerrant. The Scriptures became the written Word of God the very moment they were penned, men merely recognized them.

 

[moondweller]

Sola ecclesia is a new invention whose definition is yet to be given. I am hoping you can give that at the soonest.

“The Church” (a.k.a. the Magesterium) has sole authority to define faith and morals.

 

[moondweller]

Hi

We Muslims would have it in this order :

Quran - The pristine Word of GodAllahYHWH.And this is where we depart. (1) That the Quran is the "Word of God. (2) That Allah is the YHWH of the Bible since Islam believes Allah has no Son…

 

[b_justb]

Your definition of Sola ecclesia is:

“The Church” (a.k.a. the Magesterium) has sole authority to define faith and morals.

Who defines your faith and morals? If you say Scripture alone does that, what makes your view any better than any other Christian that says the same thing, even though you disagree on a matter of faith (or morals)? Doesn’t that make you a Sola ecclesian also, even though your ecclesia has a population of one?

 

[Deconi]

No man is infallible (save the Theoanthropic Man).The Scriptures don’t become the written “Word of God” by men declaring them so. They are inherently so because they’re inspired by the Holy Spirit (inspired meaning “God-breathed”). It is God who is infallible, therefore His Word is inerrant. The Scriptures became the written Word of God the very moment they were penned, men merely recognized them.

How, exactly?

 

[Yaholo]

I am new to this forum, but took my time reading through this post before responding. Please forgive me for breaking the path of conversation to this point, but I want to comment on the original purpose of this post…

I do believe that “Sola Scriptura” is satanic. However, the argument over it has nothing to do with the divinity or infallibility of Scripture, it is an argument about order and protocol. Those who believe in “Sola Scriptura” present Christians with an “every man for himself” religion. Catholics do not believe in “Sola Scriptura”, not because we view Scriptures in any less of a light than those who do, but because in finalizing doctrine, settling disputes, and maintaining unity we look to hierarchy of the Church entrusted with the Holy Spirit to maintain order.

Scripture as a whole is vast and endlessly deep. An uneducated person reading Scripture without any historical context could come up with all sorts of strange theories and doctrines (and many have). That is not a fault of Scripture, but God has given us much sacred knowledge that we in our sinful nature often are unable to grasp. In fact, the Scriptures tell us several times that those who do not read with the eyes of the Holy Spirit will not understand what is written.

While mistakes are still made, and reform is always required, abandoning order and unity for the sake of perfection is a false and destructive choice. Since Martin Luther’s “reformation”, we now have thousands of denominations and growing. Since there is no final (infallible) authority in the Protestant world, people will continue to split and divide as individuals come up with their own interpretations of Scripture.

Chaos is not of God, but of satan. The chaos today in the many denominations is ample evidence of a satan’s accomplishments. “Sola Scriptura” is an illusion that just causes us to distrust one another.

P.S. I do not, however, want to claim the Protestant is satanic as the Holy Spirit is obviously present when we are able to put aside our differences and work and dialogue together, as with this forum. I believe the presence of the Holy Spirit is in many people in many Protestant churches, even if He has to work with one hand tied behind His back

 

[excaliber]

Yaholo

Good post. It is possible for The Holy Spirit to work in protestants because nothing is not possible with God.

But as you say sola scriptura is an illusion. well said.

 

[anthony022071]

“The Church” (a.k.a. the Magesterium) has sole authority to define faith and morals.

That’s what the early Church Fathers believed as well.
The clergymen who rejected the teachings of the See of Rome were condemned as heretics by the Church Fathers.