Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

I never said that the magisterium is an authority over scripture, but it is one of the three sources of spiritual authority for the church, and therefore helps us interpret scripture as a result. Paul endorses the magisterium in 1 Timothy 3:15, where he identifies the church as “the pillar and foundation of truth,” a description of its ordained role in supporting and preserving the truth in all things on earth.

So verse 15 is only the last half of the statement that Paul is making, so as we were all taught in grade school, you must read the whole sentence to get the complete thought.
So let’s look at Paul’s complete thought/sentence shall we:

14 Although I hope to come to you before long, I am writing these instructions to you so that,
15 If I am detained, you may know how people ought to conduct themselves in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and stay (the prop and support) of the Truth.

So as you can see, while Paul may be calling church the pillar and foundation of truth, he is telling the church to follow his instructions, i.e.: Scripture. He does not say that they are a source of spiritual authority, quite the opposite in that he is giving them instructions and direction, no imbuing independent power from Scripture.

 

[Matthew1618]

The instructions that he refers to are in matters of worship and clerical conduct, where the laity would know how to behave in the church setting and the Overseers (modern day priests in this context) and Deacons (modern day deacons) would know how to conduct themselves to the satisfaction of the clerical role they assumed. The earlier chapters of the letter reveal this. He is speaking to the people of the church and how they should act in matters of behavior and conduct, not for any other reason but because the church is the divinely ordained body that Paul describes as God’s household and the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. My original point stands, yes, he is writing instructional guidelines for the flock but only because the church body is ordained to be the very household of God, perfect in its exercise and its authority on what is and isn’t true.

Furthermore, he is not “imbuing” them with independent power from the scripture, but he is simply acknowledging that as God’s household, the Church has the sacred authority and the divinely inspired guidance to discern and support truth in all matters. The early church fathers taught and believed this principle, as proven in the writings of figures like St. Ignatius and Tertullian, and they implemented such authority in the early councils of the church to decide authentic doctrine (council of Jerusalem, Nicaea, etc).

Furthermore, how could you claim that this passage revolves around a model of Sola Scriptura, when scripture had not even been definitively compiled yet? In light of all of this, and I am trying to be as civil as possible by saying this, I simply don’t see how your position holds water.

 

[medwigel]

Furthermore, how could you claim that this passage revolves around a model of Sola Scriptura, when scripture had not even been definitively compiled yet? In light of all of this, and I am trying to be as civil as possible by saying this, I simply don’t see how your position holds water.

I never made such claims, I was responding to your post!
Go back an read the thread before you put words in my mouth.

 

[medwigel]

I never said that the magisterium is an authority over scripture, but it is one of the three sources of spiritual authority for the church, and therefore helps us interpret scripture as a result. Paul endorses the magisterium in 1 Timothy 3:15, where he identifies the church as “the pillar and foundation of truth,” a description of its ordained role in supporting and preserving the truth in all things on earth.

There is nothing in this verse in Timothy that asserts that the Church was deemed 1 of 3 spiritual authorities.

 

[medwigel]

The instructions that he refers to are in matters of worship and clerical conduct, where the laity would know how to behave in the church setting and the Overseers (modern day priests in this context) and Deacons (modern day deacons) would know how to conduct themselves to the satisfaction of the clerical role they assumed. The earlier chapters of the letter reveal this. He is speaking to the people of the church and how they should act in matters of behavior and conduct, not for any other reason but because the church is the divinely ordained body that Paul describes as God’s household and the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. My original point stands, yes, he is writing instructional guidelines for the flock but only because the church body is ordained to be the very household of God, perfect in its exercise and its authority on what is and isn’t true.

Defining church structure does not equate to having or giving spiritual authority. The spiritual authoritative figure is the Scripture and it is relaying instructions over to the church so that it can live up what God intended it to be, which is a Pillar and Foundation of Truth; the church is built on the teaching of the Scripture because the the Scripture = the Truth (note that Truth is capitalized meaning it’s the personified Truth- i.e. Christ), the Truth = the Word and the Word = CHRIST.

 

[Matthew1618]

Exactly, the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and Paul acknowledges this defining role in scripture. However, how can it act as the foundation and pillar of scripture (as you define the term truth as meaning) and still be built on scripture? In other words, if adhering to your interpretation, how can the Church, as the foundational support of scripture, be built on a foundational support of the very thing it itself is the foundation of? That’s inherently contradictory, and attests to such an interpretation being erroneous.

Not only that, but even if we were to accept that the “truth” being talked about here as a reference to scripture, that still would acknowledge a magisterial authority to some capacity, seeing as in order for the church to be acting as an adequate support for scripture, it must first have the ability to discern how said scripture should be definitely interpreted, otherwise it would not be adequately supporting it.

However, all of this is null seeing as there are no limits placed upon the term “truth” here. Paul had every opportunity to specify if he was talking about “the Word of God,” but he didn’t. While scripture is an area that would fall under the Magisterial authority of the Church in regards to canonical compilation and interpretation, it is not the sole area of the truth that the Church supports, and the general usage of “truth” attests to this fact. This is also supported due to the simple fact that the early church fathers believed this interpretation of the passage wholeheartedly, believing that the church had the authority to convene and decide sound doctrine that didn’t have any immediate correlation to Christ or Scripture (when the Council of Carthage covered the debate on whether infants should be baptized on the eight day in accordance with Jewish circumcision tradition or if they could be baptized earlier on in their life). The magisterium of the church seems to be the only doctrinal point that can be derived by reading 1 Timothy 3:15, as other interpretations simply can’t survive scrutiny.

 

[medwigel]

However, how can it act as the foundation and pillar of scripture (as you define the term truth as meaning) and still be built on scripture? In other words, if adhering to your interpretation, how can the Church, as the foundational support of scripture, be built on a foundational support of the very thing it itself is the foundation of? That’s inherently contradictory, and attests to such an interpretation being erroneous.

The Church is built on the back of the Scripture. The Church is the foundation but the Scripture is the cornerstone. A building may have a sound foundation but without a cornerstone the building cannot stand. Without the Scripture, and therefore without Christ, the Church cannot stand.

Ephesians 2: 19 - 22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Did Christ layout structure and leadership in the Church, yes He did, but all of the authority comes from Christ alone. The Church, as Paul tells us, is supported by the CHIEF CORNERSTONE, which is Christ- not the prophets or the apostles.

 

[medwigel]

but even if we were to accept that the “truth” being talked about here as a reference to scripture, that still would acknowledge a magisterial authority to some capacity, seeing as in order for the church to be acting as an adequate support for scripture, it must first have the ability to discern how said scripture should be definitely interpreted, otherwise it would not be adequately supporting it.

The truth here is Christ, it is not referring in any way to man’s leadership. It makes no mention of man’s supposed authority. Your extrapolation is a total stretch and misguided.

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

The truth here is Christ, it is not referring in any way to man’s leadership.

It is not an “either/or” medwigel.

The Truth IS Christ.

But He ALSO works through His Church.

That is WHY whatever the Bishops bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven (under certain circumstances).

MATTHEW 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 notice what’s NOT said:

NOT MATTHEW 18:15-18 (Phantom Verses) 17 If he refuses to listen to them,
open your Bible and really drive home your interpretive opinion.
And if he refuses to listen even to YOU and your private interpretation,
let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, WHATEVER you bind on earth EVEN if it is error shall be bound in heaven.
But if this guy shows you the verses that he thinks are in favor of his opinion too,
that’s the best you guys can do
and you really can’t get to truth until you are in Heaven. But be of joyful emotions and perceived “unity” even in interpretive error.

 

[bobperk]

The Church, as Paul tells us, is supported by the CHIEF CORNERSTONE, which is Christ- not the prophets or the apostles.

Yet Christ commanded his disciples to spread the Gospel to all nations (before a Gospel was even written) and left it up to men to write the Gospels and NT, and later, other men (the Church) to compile and decide on the Canon of Scripture.

 

[Matthew1618]

There’s an important distinction between being built on “Christ” and “scripture.” However, I understand what you’re saying, and Catholic fully believe such a notion if understood in the right context. The Church’s deposit of faith does hang on scripture, yet it also hangs on sacred tradition (which Paul talks about in 2 Thessalonians 2:15) and the magisterial authority of the church. All of these things point back to Christ, keeping the reality alive that he is the cornerstone and foundation of the church. Yet again I ask you, how can the Church be built on the back of scripture when the Church existed before scriptural canon was even complete? If you attest that the church is the “Pillar and Foundation” of scripture, how can it be built upon something that through, the magisterium, was canonically compiled by the church itself?

Furthermore, Christ is the foundation of the Church, and we acknowledge him as the chief cornerstone. However, we also understand that Christ brought the apostles into that foundation, and while all authority comes from him, he delegated some of that authority on the apostolic offices of his early apostles. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and promised all the apostles that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, and these apostolic offices can be passed on as seen in Acts 1. The Church is supported by Christ as the cornerstone, but you seem to pass over the foundational role that the apostles play as well. Again, how do you explain this authority without acknowledging the reality that the church has a valid magisterium as well?

 

[jlhargus]

I refer to what my Pastor teaches about the Scripture, not his own idea independent of the Bible as the ultimate authority. Anything my Pastor teaches, he will ALWAYS refer back to the Bible to justify any statement or claim that he makes;

So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.

the Catholic church can’t make that same claim. The Bible is the authority of what we are taught, not the tradition of men. I said if before and I will say it again, the traditions of man are fallible therefore are not always reliable.

Nor can you, where is Trinity found in scripture? Bible alone is a tradition of men, faith alone is a tradition of men both contradict scripture. Another tradition of men is all Tradition is now in the Bible. Can you post that scripture, if not then you are following a tradition of men?

As a former so called Bible only Protestant, I can tell you there is none more scripturally faithful than the Catholic Church. I am not aware of any doctrine that is not at least implied in scripture. Time permitting I would be glad to discuss any Catholic or SDA doctrine and scripture evidence.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I shouldrun, or had run, in vain.]

Maybe you need this verse in a different version: NIV:

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to preach the same Gospel to the Jews that he was preaching to the Gentiles, and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.

Post from the NIV or any version where “Paul says that he went to Jerusalem to preach the same Gospel to the Jews that he was preaching to the Gentiles,”. The NIV doesn’t say or even imply such a thing at all.

You post, “meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,” “and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.” Then you post, “It doesn’t say he spoke with them”.
If he never spoke with them why meet privately with them, they certainly didn’t just look at each other.

Next contradiction, “and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.

How did he present to them what he wanted to preach if he never spoke with them?
Another contradiction, “I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.”

Again if Paul never spoke to the leaders how could he verify he had not been running in vain?

and gave them overriding authority over the Scripture. It doesn’t say that any overriding authority over Scripture was given to the leaders.

Again this is a pure fiction. Post where I or anyone else said or implied your following statement; “and gave them overriding authority over the Scripture. It doesn’t say that any overriding authority over Scripture was given to the leaders.”.

 

[medwigel]

Yet Christ commanded his disciples to spread the Gospel to all nations (before a Gospel was even written) and left it up to men to write the Gospels and NT, and later, other men (the Church) to compile and decide on the Canon of Scripture.

Right, because while Christ is the cornerstone of the church, and all is built on Him, we all are here to play a supporting roll. So some people have been inspired by God to pen the Word, others are teachers other are evangelist.

Ephesians 4:11-12
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

 

[medwigel]

So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.

Do not put words in my mouth. My Pastor is an authority in teaching the Word but he is no an authority in addition to the Word- there is a difference.

 

[medwigel]

You post, “meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,” “and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.” Then you post, “It doesn’t say he spoke with them”.
If he never spoke with them why meet privately with them, they certainly didn’t just look at each other.

If you are going to quote me, I request that you quote my full sentences. It is dishonest to cherry pick and cut sentences to fit your argument.
So in the interest of fairness I say read my post again in it’s entirety before you reply.

This was not the complete sentence: “It doesn’t say he spoke with them”.
– what I wrote was –
It doesn’t say he spoke with them and gave them overriding authority over the Scripture. It doesn’t say that any overriding authority over Scripture was given to the leaders.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.

Do not put words in my mouth. My Pastor is an authority in teaching the Word but he is no an authority in addition to the Word- there is a difference.

If you refer to what your Pastor teaches about Scripture then you are using him as an authority on Scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

You post, “meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,” “and because he’s a man of order he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church first to present what he wants to preach.” Then you post, “It doesn’t say he spoke with them”.
If he never spoke with them why meet privately with them, they certainly didn’t just look at each other.

If you are going to quote me, I request that you quote my full sentences. It is dishonest to cherry pick and cut sentences to fit your argument.
So in the interest of fairness I say read my post again in it’s entirety before you reply.

This was not the complete sentence: “It doesn’t say he spoke with them”.
– what I wrote was –
It doesn’t say he spoke with them and gave them overriding authority over the Scripture. It doesn’t say that any overriding authority over Scripture was given to the leaders.

You are right I miss-read your post and I do apologize you did not make a contradicting statement as I posted.

 

[medwigel]

So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.

That is not what you are originally implying. You said, “So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor”, and I am saying that my Pastor is not an authority along side the Bible. He is an authoritative teacher not an authority.

 

[jlhargus]

jlhargus:

So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor.

That is not what you are originally implying. You said, “So it’s not Bible alone, you have at least two authorities the Bible and your pastor”, and I am saying that my Pastor is not an authority along side the Bible. He is an authoritative teacher not an authority.

I stand behind that, if you are using your pastor to understand a scripture your have two authorities.