SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[benhur]

]ben; How did you interpret my question, to "wrongly portraying SS? I don’t get it?

Hi G,

I responded to this post from you: "Which do you prefer? God’s written Word Sola Scriptura? or

God who writes His Word upon our hearts and mind, and we Catholics not only do we hear the Word, See the Word, smell the Word, but we taste and Consume the Word of God with our whole being.’’

So the either/or and misrepresentation that it is not both scripture and personal divine revelation. They do not cancel each other out. The reformers did not deny the writ,in and on our hearts. In fact they were criticized for even daring to listen /read it, that which was in their hearts thru God and Writ and tradition.

Is Sola Scriptura practice or doctrine infallible?

If SS practice or doctrine is not infallible? Then why practice something that is questionable?

If SS practice or doctrine is infallible? prove it.

I think I answered this, that infallible is wrong word. A doctrine /practice is either correct or not. Only God is infallible. Only His Writ is distinctively inerrant. Not that you and I ,or a council, or theologian, or papal decree can not be inerrant on a matter, but with distinction.

I did not say trust the magisterium. But I will say, Trust Jesus works, authority and teachings he gave to the magisterium.

Ok , I agree and disregard the rest they may purport (that is not from Jesus).

That which is written upon our hearts and minds is practiced from Apostolic Sacred Tradition, witnessed by Sacred Scripture under the guidance of the Pillar and bulwark of Truth the Church in the presence of the Blessed Trinity.

Ok, just that tradition is not equally normative. Writ is more constant than a living tradition /church.

The reformers rejected what God had already written upon their hearts, when they replaced it with man made ideologies.

Pure judgement subject to higher judgement. They claimed the opposite, took out man made idea and made captive to God’s writ rightly divided

Had they kept the Apostolic faith to their death’s as Thomas More and other’ did when they were forced to change their apostolic faith.

Again , a judgement on reformers, even some to their deaths, subject to a higher judgement forthcoming.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Thanks ben! I enjoy when you are in a thread. I actually don’t want to spend too much time posting here, because I feel we (Catholics) have barged into a thread aimed at Non-Catholic Christians who belief and practice SS. I think we should spend more time observing and learning this one.

Hi rc,

As Gabe pointed out somewhat, tough to judge or accurately portray something one does not practice or believe.But may we grace each patiently, and please join.

Scripture is a large part of Revelation which came out of the Church, no?

Absolutely
Ephesians 3

To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Revelation is complete. Confirmation by the Church is continuously feeding the faithful. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and it’s members, individually. Scripture is awsome! The most awsome gift the Church has received, along with His Eucharist and Holy Spirit! It is living, so don’t let Catholics let you think we don’t believe it is! It is also Materially Sufficient for our salvation. Proper understanding and Communion with the Church is what Scripture draws us towards.

Ok .Pretty good , especially the living part (some do object to Writ as living, active).

As far as material or formal sufficiency that is something else, even a conundrum. The CC since Trent has claimed Writ is insufficient without the other two legs of divine inspiration.
Writ is formally sufficient , within the church and for the church.

But I am with you that SS does not mean apart from apostles, or their tradition or apart from the “church” or need for the Holy Spirit. etc. Sola /alone means only that writ is distinctively inspired as normative apart from any Tradition that claims equality of inspiration.

Blessings

PS see you are needed here . i think you are the first to bring sufficiency which is spot on topic for this thread,

 

[Abu]

susanlo #199
Some issues are contested and it is up to each individual to carefully read Scripture and make a determination as to which they should believe

.
That is against Christ’s teaching who gave us His Catholic Church – She gave us the Sacred Scriptures and only She teaches what is right therein.

There are institutional church leaders and well-educated teachers that can lead and educate, but they are not infallible.

Only those based on St Peter on whom the Christ founded His Church and no other, are infallible, as Her Sacred Scriptures tell us clearly.

I don’t think one individual needs to exercise authority over another, but just teach truth and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

The thousands of different sects all teaching something different show us why Christ empowered His Church built on St Peter and the Apostles to teach dogma and doctrine: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:19; 18:18].

That explains precisely why there is so much confusion, and loss of essentials, outside of the Catholic Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Scriptures are infallible. Those reading it are fallible.

The question is whether some humans were gifted with the ability to interpret Scriptures infallibly or not. That is where the difference is.

I think sola scriptura was about using the Bible instead of Tradition.

I see. This is then the difference between Catholicism and Sola Scriptura. We believe that you cannot get the correct interpretation of scripture without seeing them through Sacred Tradition. There are many interpretations but only the one that is understood as in Sacred Tradition is the one that is correct.

People were objecting to the belief that the Traditions were infallible and equal to the Bible.

Sola scriptura isn’t an infallible practice. It is about using only infallible written word as an authority.

Is not that rendered it useless, infallible as it is, if it is not understood infallibly? How could one depend on an authority which is fallible? How good it is really in reality?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;13805487]Hi gabe,

Ok but then can one say you enter dangerous waters when trying to discern/debate something, SS, that you do not live out or believe or practice ?

Hi ben; please allow me to make myself clear. I am not debating those who hold to a faith in a SS. I hope to clarify and correct the misunderstandings revealed here by SS that attacks or rejects with blindfolds, subjects like Catholic Sacred Tradition, infallibility, scripture interpretation and the authority Jesus placed upon His Magisterium on earth.

When I address a SS, it is to learn something or get clarification from a SS. I would respectfully ask the question.

Did not know P’s are cut off from counciliar foundations…

Protestants are not cut off from councilliar foundations, they are never present or existing when the Church council’s. I believe it was Pope John XXIII who first opened Vatican I sessions for Protestants to listen and attend.

As far as I understand, Protestants do not recognize any Church council as being infallible. Beginning with the first council in Jerusalem. Peter’s vision from heaven is infallible that allowed the Gentiles to be baptized into the Church, without circumcision. But according to your view of SS, no council is infallible, only God’s written Word.

So how is it that, it appears that you object to Protestants as being cut off from Church councils? When your view of SS does not accept any Church council as being infallible.

Anyways , I was only going by what a good Catholic Father, defender of the faith, pointed out (use of council(s)) by a heretic he was dialoguing with.
It might help to be more specific.

My specific’s lay with SS. How can a SS use SS to defeat any historical or new heresy without an infallible authority to do so?

You introduced Catholic Saints and Catholic Councils. I respectfully declined to respond to a off topic subject, that has no relation to my question.

Again, the power of God is not negated with SS,

From what I understand SS to be saying here. SS does negate the power of God. When SS rejects that God can make His Church infallible and as Paul states the Church being without any stain, Immaculate without spot or wrinkle.

According to your post’s. SS possesses an invisible authority, that no one can see, except a SS’s. Which supersedes Sacred Tradition from which Sacred Scripture comes from, SS invisible authority supersedes all Church authority, even though Sola Scriptura records the Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

I hear SS claiming to SS as being their Sola authority over the Church and the Magisterium. All I am asking for is proof from your SS faith, to reveal how that Sola Scriptura authority is used to defeat any historical or present day heresy without any visible infallible Church authority.

I am seeking answers to how a SS practices that authority from SS.
And please do not respond with an Orthodox, Catholic opposition to the Pope’s authority, when no Orthodox Church never accepts any SS practice or doctrine.

peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No : I can’t give an example of SS to bind and loose error or teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ without error.
You are using the words is a confusing way:
The doctrine/ practice of Sola Scriptura is not Scripture.

The words are are not interchangeable,

I am sorry if I caused you confusion. My intention is to learn more about this new SS interpretation. Or at least it is new to myself.

Is your view of Sola Scriptura as being an infallible authority, that is used to reject or replace the Magisterium’s Authority of the Catholic Church?

If yes? why?

 

[alwayswill]

I am sorry if I caused you confusion. My intention is to learn more about this new SS interpretation. Or at least it is new to myself.

Is your view of Sola Scriptura as being an infallible authority, that is used to reject or replace the Magisterium’s Authority of the Catholic Church?

If yes? why?

I don’t think the view I am presenting is new
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not Scripture.
The words are are not interchangeable,

I’ll answer this question
"Is your view of Scriptura as being an infallible authority, that is used to reject or replace the Magisterium’s Authority of the Catholic Church?

**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

From NEWADVENT.org Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

Protestantism, however,** by no means despises or rejects church authority** as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,

from wiki
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

 

[alwayswill]

According to your post’s. SS possesses an invisible authority, that no one can see, except a SS’s. Which supersedes Sacred Tradition from which Sacred Scripture comes from, SS invisible authority supersedes all Church authority, even though Sola Scriptura records the Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

here is an excellent example

Scripture does not say “the Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.”
Scripture does say "Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.
The definite article “the” is there in the Greek.

Does it matter?
YES!

A pillar of gold means the pillar is made of gold
A pillar of THE gold means the pillar is supports/upholds the gold

a pillar of truth means the pillar is the truth
a pillar of THE truth means the pillar supports/upholds the truth

what is **the ** truth that the church is to uphold?
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The church (ekklesia =all believers) is to uphold the truth which is Jesus and His Word.
The church is not the truth

 

[Darryl_B]

here is an excellent example

Scripture does not say “the Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.”
Scripture does say "Church as being the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.
The definite article “the” is there in the Greek.

Does it matter?
YES!

A pillar of gold means the pillar is made of gold
A pillar of THE gold means the pillar is supports/upholds the gold

a pillar of truth means the pillar is the truth
a pillar of THE truth means the pillar supports/upholds the truth

what is **the ** truth that the church is to uphold?
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The church (ekklesia =all believers) is to uphold the truth which is Jesus and His Word.
The church is not the truth

My friend, that is remarkably bad logic. Please reconsider what you just said.

 

[alwayswill]

My friend, that is remarkably bad logic. Please reconsider what you just said.

its solid: where is the error

1 Tim 3:15 is NOT a proof text for Catholic Church infallibility.

The church (ekklesia =all believers) is to uphold the truth which is Jesus and His Word.

 

[rcwitness]

The only infallible human is Jesus

 

[SyroMalankara]

its solid: where is the error

1 Tim 3:15 is NOT a proof text for Catholic Church infallibility.

The church (ekklesia =all believers) is to uphold the truth which is Jesus and His Word.

This is simply kicking the can down the road. Now you have to define ‘believers’, excluding the believing Catholics and other non-SS folks. Since the vast majority of Christianity rejects SS, isn’t it’s rejection as truth established?

 

[clem456]

Because the Bible says so.
Do you have a particular scenario in mind?

““Because the Bible says so.”” Think about this.

Since Christ is the eternal Son of God, we can put ourselves in the year 34 AD, when there was no written New Testament.

Stop and think about this for a second…
In the year 34 AD there was no written word proclaiming the gospel. None. Nada. The NT did not exist. Do you agree with this or not?

Do you agree that despite the fact there was no written word, the Gospel was alive and well? Did the Gospel exist?

If you agree the Gospel was a living breathing thing (any Christian must admit this), then what do you propose the Gospel was?
What was the Gospel in the year 34 AD? What did it consist of, and how was it propagated? Remember, there was NO BOOK.

The only answer available is “the persons who knew and loved Jesus of Nazareth”. You are basing your faith on those persons, who received it from Christ, and passed it on to other persons. The ultimate foundation of the Gospel is the person of Christ as passed on to those he gave it to. The book is an integral part of it, but cannot be the sole source and sole arbiter of your faith.

Using the way of belief proposed by many here, Christ would have been rejected out of hand, (as he actually was by most in the year 34 AD), because they already had the book. They did not need a bunch of ignorant Galileans telling them about God, they had a book for all the answers to life.

These ignorant Galileans had no authority whatsoever, right? We had the book!

 

[rcwitness]

Seems like SS says the Church does not have the guarantee to Teach what constitutes True interpretation, what is actually Apostolic Tradition, and what is heresy. Only private/personal bible study can assure these things.

Is this correct?

 

[susanlo]

““Because the Bible says so.”” Think about this.

Since Christ is the eternal Son of God, we can put ourselves in the year 34 AD, when there was no written New Testament.

Stop and think about this for a second…
In the year 34 AD there was no written word proclaiming the gospel. None. Nada. The NT did not exist. Do you agree with this or not?

There was no written NT in 34 AD

Do you agree that despite the fact there was no written word, the Gospel was alive and well? Did the Gospel exist?

Yes, the book of Acts was being lived out in the present and the Apostles were preaching and eventually creating the written NT.

If you agree the Gospel was a living breathing thing (any Christian must admit this), then what do you propose the Gospel was?
What was the Gospel in the year 34 AD? What did it consist of, and how was it propagated? Remember, there was NO BOOK.

The Apostles were proclaiming the word and eventually under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, creating the written gospels.

The only answer available is “the persons who knew and loved Jesus of Nazareth”. You are basing your faith on those persons, who received it from Christ, and passed it on to other persons. The ultimate foundation of the Gospel is the person of Christ as passed on to those he gave it to. The book is an integral part of it, but cannot be the sole source and sole arbiter of your faith.

Using the way of belief proposed by many here, Christ would have been rejected out of hand, (as he actually was by most in the year 34 AD), because they already had the book. They did not need a bunch of ignorant Galileans telling them about God, they had a book for all the answers to life.

These ignorant Galileans had no authority whatsoever, right? We had the book!

Are you saying because there was an OT there would be no NT? I am not sure if I understand the question. But I think that was what the OT prophecies were about. Paul came across the Bereans who used the OT to see if what they heard about Jesus was in line with Scripture. In Acts 17 " 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

 

[clem456]

There was no written NT in 34 AD

Yes, the book of Acts was being lived out in the present and the Apostles were preaching and eventually creating the written NT.

The Apostles were proclaiming the word and eventually under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, creating the written gospels.

"

Great. So we agree the Christian faith is not founded on the bible, as evidenced by your use of the word “eventually” in regard to the NT.
And as evidenced by your observation that the NT was “created” by the Apostles. ( I would take issue with the idea the Apostles “created” the NT, but that’s another day)

So we agree that Tradition comes before written word.

I am not trying to convert you to Catholicism, I am merely pointing out that the insistence on the bible as the sole, or final, arbiter of the faith is untenable. In fact it’s an absurd claim to make.

If it were like that, the Gospel would never have gotten started, by your own admission. If it were like that, we would all still be pointing to the OT and refusing to believe the ignorant Galileans and their “traditions”, because we have “the book” and we don’t need a person like Jesus. Jesus claims to fulfill the book. Jesus is a person. The people of God at that time rejected the notion that a person could be the fulfillment of the book. This is the radical heart of Christianity, that in the fullness of time God became flesh.

But, by your own admission, you concede authority to the ignorant Galileans who Jesus knew, and which to this day is still continuous. Evidenced by the fact that you profess belief in the same One they knew.

You received the faith from someone, not from the book. The book works with the someone, not as the someone’s master.

Jesus is a person, not a book. The apostles were persons, not books. Your pastor is a person, not a book, Your parents are persons, not books.
Without all those things wrapped up in personhood, you have no Christianity and no bible.
Love, trust, faith, authority, obedience, charisms…,etc. All very personal things.
AKA Tradition.

 

[benhur]

Protestants are not cut off from councilliar foundations, they are never present

Of course we were not present , along with 1400 years of any church history. But it is the foundation they provide that is and should be accessible, and used.

So how is it that, it appears that you object to Protestants as being cut off from Church councils? When your view of SS does not accept any Church council as being infallible.

Hi Gabe,

Quickly, it seems either or again. That is if something is not infallible it is not authoritative. Oh boy , are SS folk then in trouble. No authority in parents, or governments, or presbyters, etc., etc., for they are not perfect.

You pray a council (or parent, presbyter, government) is inerrant, and never assume it to be infallible, as we both agree Writ is.

My specific’s lay with SS. How can a SS use SS to defeat any historical or new heresy without an infallible authority to do so?

Again ,either or . We have no authority except that which is infallible ? Can not authority be human (not robotic, cruise control perfect), striving to be inerrant by God’s graces and Holy Spirit ? I would think authorized authority is more important. Most converts are moved not by the preachers infallibility or perfection in doctrine, rather in perceiving their love with an authoritative message.

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

Of course we were not present , along with 1400 years of any church history. But it is the foundation they provide that is and should be accessible, and used.
Hi Gabe,

Quickly, it seems either or again. That is if something is not infallible it is not authoritative. Oh boy , are SS folk then in trouble. No authority in parents, or governments, or presbyters, etc., etc., for they are not perfect.

You pray a council (or parent, presbyter, government) is inerrant, and never assume it to be infallible, as we both agree Writ is.

Again ,either or . We have no authority except that which is infallible ? Can not authority be human (not robotic, cruise control perfect), striving to be inerrant by God’s graces and Holy Spirit ? I would think authorized authority is more important. Most converts are moved not by the preachers infallibility or perfection in doctrine, rather in perceiving their love with an authoritative message.

Blessings

This presupposes that there is no objective Truth, or many equal yet opposing truths.
If Jesus is Truth, and knowable, would not those who go against His “authorized authority” be unauthorized?

Do you agree that when a person (a group, or even the Church) speaks the Truth, that this Truth can be infallible and also authoritative? I’d say that whenever anyone speaks truth, that truth is objectively infallible. The US Constitution, for example, is authoritative, yet not infallible. The Bible is infallible but not primarily authoritative.

(See Anglican theologian NT Wright’s take: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm)

 

[clem456]

This presupposes that there is no objective Truth, or many equal yet opposing truths.
If Jesus is Truth, and knowable, would not those who go against His “authorized authority” be unauthorized?

Do you agree that when a person (a group, or even the Church) speaks the Truth, that this Truth can be infallible and also authoritative? I’d say that whenever anyone speaks truth, that truth is objectively infallible. The US Constitution, for example, is authoritative, yet not infallible. The Bible is infallible but not primarily authoritative.

(See Anglican theologian NT Wright’s take: ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm)

And the problem is, everyone without exception submits him/herself to what they consider the authoritative truth. The CC is always criticized for accepting the “traditions of men” when everyone without exception has a tradition. It’s silly.

It is not enough to say the bible is my beginning and end.
Whose bible, which bible, started with who, given to you by who, interpreted by who? Based on the stories originally passed down by…
?

Whether we will admit it or not, everyone has their own ecclesial authority. CC has it, “bible believing” communities have it.
To simply claim authority is “of the book” is a dodge. If the book was an authority unto itself we would all agree on the book, and we don’t.

The only question is “which tradition has the capital T?”

 

[rcwitness]

The more a person desires to conform to Scripture as the Word of God, the more they acknowledge that the Church was used by God to guarantee a body of Scripture for us to rely on!

If all SS Christians treated every issue and matter of faith as we did in discerning the Canon of Scripture, what would their practice and Communion look like?