The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[fulloftruth]

If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.

From another Thread
“Let’s all calm down about the 'ol Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice sola Scriptura so therefore SS is false argument. This is not a valid argument, and those who understand SS properly don’t use the argument. Why? Did the Apostles or Jesus recognize Papal Infallibility? Using the same logic you undermine your own position. One shouldn’t use arguments that refute your own position.”

Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum.“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias; And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the **key of the house of David **upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.”

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was re-instituting the office of Prime Minister. Since Christ is called The Son of David in the same Book of Matthew, and he came to fullfill the ancient Kingdom of David and to transform it into the Heavenly Kingdom, He uses the old model of the Kingdom of David as the basis for the structure of the new Kingdom. The word Pope is the Italian word for Papa, which simply means that the Pope is like a Father to the Inhabitants of the New Heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church(see Rev 21). Also, the office of Prime Minister lasted for the entire duration of the Kingdom of David, always appointing a successor when needed, and that successor had the same authority as the person he replaced, it is the office that holds the authority, and that authority is held by who ever holds that office. All of the apostles would have known what scripture Christ was qouting, and would know,when the Spirit came on Pentecost, what he meant. Quite simply put, it was Christ himself that set up the office of Pope and gave it a share of the authority that was given to him from the Father. To ensure that the Great Commission could be carried out, He had to leave us with an authority that could lead us into all truth and steer us away from heresy. Making disciples of all nations could not have been done in one generation. This authority in no way means that every Pope will be even remotley Christ Like. It simply gaurantees the faithful that Christ is with us always even to the end of the age and that He did not leave us with God breathed Scripture, He left us with a Church, which he said He would build, and that Church gave us God Breathed Scripture, and continues to make disciples of all nations until He comes again.

 

[BayCityRickL]

“Perfect”? I know it’s hard to be humble, I have that problem myself.

Yes, I agree, that is the answer. More broadly, history is the answer, as you illustrated. Karl Keating had a newsletter a couple weeks ago wherein he distinguished that scripture cannot be infallible. That’s not the term to apply to scripture. I think he said something like ‘inerrant’ is the term for scripture, ‘infallible’ for the Pope.

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, collected and assembled the inspired works into what we call the Bible.

 

[fulloftruth]

I was feeling it that night, sorry. Perfect is probably a little strong. You know I wrote this before I saw that the word infallible is supposed to be applied to people, but I have heard Tim Staples and James White call Sacred Scripture infallible in a debate. What gives? Which is right, I like Karl and all but these other guy’s are pretty smart too. But I do see the difference, infallible is some what of a protection in the future of acting, where Scripture is already complete and without error, So I do see the difference. I bet Jimmy Akin came up with it, It sounds like his particular style of thought

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum. “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias; And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the **key of the house of David **upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.”

How do references to having “power” and being a “father” equate to papal infallibility? Even referring to Peter being a “peg in a sure place” doesn’t equate to papal infallibility. This is an exercise in begging the question.

Also, the office of Prime Minister lasted for the entire duration of the Kingdom of David, always appointing a successor when needed, and that successor had the same authority as the person he replaced, it is the office that holds the authority, and that authority is held by who ever holds that office.

Why should a connection be draw between this office and the keys to the kingdom? If you’re going to draw a parallel between the Old Testament succession of rulers and the New Testament Papacy, you need to demonstrate that each ruler had assigned to them the keys. So far the parallel only includes one case of key giving in the Old Testament, and this naturally leads to one case in the New Testament.

~Matt

 

[MrS]

p90:

How do references to having “power” and being a “father” equate to papal infallibility? Even referring to Peter being a “peg in a sure place” doesn’t equate to papal infallibility. This is an exercise in begging the question.

Why should a connection be draw between this office and the keys to the kingdom? If you’re going to draw a parallel between the Old Testament succession of rulers and the New Testament Papacy, you need to **demonstrate that each ruler had assigned to them the keys. **So far the parallel only includes one case of key giving in the Old Testament, and this naturally leads to one case in the New Testament.

~Matt

Each ruler??? The kingdom of which we speak is the kingdom of God… one ruler, one set of keys… one office. And like the “office” of Judas, it has to be filled. Often times with weak men, often with strong and spiritual men.

Why the connection? Because the words are the same. And the Isaah verses on the keys are not interpreted to be a new thing, rather an explanation of on ongoing occurance in the kingdom… a succession of prime ministers who are in charge while the king is “physically” absent. The king is still alive, but the PM is in charge of the immediate kingdom.

MrS

 

[MrS]

The understanding of the papacy and the infallibily protection is tough to see when only one verse is looked at at a time.

The Church has the history of looking at all of scripture, and studing, and with a Christ-given protection, the Church only occassionally declares how a doctrine is developing - not changing or being invented or rejected.

MrS

 

[p90]

MrS:

Each ruler??? The kingdom of which we speak is the kingdom of God… one ruler, one set of keys… one office. And like the “office” of Judas, it has to be filled. Often times with weak men, often with strong and spiritual men.

The Papacy is a succession of different people. Peter isn’t alive today, and if it is to be accepted that the keys gave infallibility, it needs to be demonstrated that each successor had those keys or it can only be applied to the one who received it.

~Matt

 

[p90]

MrS:

The understanding of the papacy and the infallibily protection is tough to see when only one verse is looked at at a time.

It’s especially difficult to see when passages on church government don’t address it.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,
The Scriptures show us that when a person left office in any manner, (like Judas), they were replace with someone new by a vote.

Acts 1:20…‘Let another take his office.’ verse 26And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Mtthias. And he was **numbered with the eleven apostles. **

He was elected to take the place of Judas. He then was numbered with the eleven apostles, in other words he was considered one of the twelve apostles. It shows that even the early church knew that it was a perpetual church with perpetual offices in the church that would need to be filled.

If Matthias became one of the twelve apostles simply by filling the empty office of Judas, can you not see when Peter died, the office Peter held, which contained the keys, would be passed down in the same manner?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[fulloftruth]

Not only what Maria said Matt, but since there was an assumed succesion in Isaiah and Acts then I don’t understand why you Care to act so blind. The new office of P m is more perfected than the old because of who started it, Why would a dreg like Judas be replaced and not a Saint Like Peter. And when taken with the fact that Christ not only gave him the keys but he also prayed for him, asked him to tend and feed his sheep and lambs. Why the high hurdle for this and not Sola Scriptura which is no where found in Scripture. Lets think about this, its because its Catholic. If you did not have any prejudices than you would not claim to not see a coraltion. The fact that Christ is the King of the new Heavenly Jerusalem, which was the old Kingdom of David, and he himself re stated the verses from Isaiah, and reinstituted the office, and as we see in Acts, they are offices with successors. And in Isiah there were succesors. And the connection with the Pope’s office today being so strong, ie. the word Pope being Father in Italian, the Pope being a throne of Honor in his Fathers house,The question would be why wouldn’t you have successors here, but Thank God we do, and thank Jesus the first Apostles understood what he meant and so did the next 15 centuries. I guess the Church that Christ said he would start and that he said would last until he came Back, is going to just that, no matter what you say or try to do to derail her. I would hate to be on your side of this issue, because I don’t see any other Church claiming to be the Church that Christ started or be able to claim and prove an unbroken chain of Successors to Peter and be able to say that even secular history proves that the CC is the Church that Christ started. I would pray for the Grace to have the scales fall from your eyes.

Steve

 

[p90]

MariaG:

If Matthias became one of the twelve apostles simply by filling the empty office of Judas, can you not see when Peter died, the office Peter held, which contained the keys, would be passed down in the same manner?

You can’t move from the succession of apostles in general to the succession of the papal office. There were other positions in the church that were not appointed by succession (elder, deacon, etc.). Would you argue that those should be filled through succession because the office of apostle was passed on through appointment? The association is unwarranted.

~Matt

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

since there was an assumed succesion in Isaiah and Acts then I don’t understand why you Care to act so blind.

There isn’t “an assumed succesion” of the papal office. A gratuitous assertion merits a gratuitous response.

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

The original statement was that you cannot define the canon of Scripture with Scripture. So therefore there must some authority other than Scripture to define the canon.

Sola Scriptura is obviously incorrect anyway because it doesn’t satisfy the needs of the intellect. To understand a book, you must understand the cultural and religious context. The Catholic Church has much more experience with this context and so therefore can reveal the meaning of Scripture. For someone to pick up a Bible and claim they can explain all of it, with no background in its meaning, is preposterous.

Matt, you are invited to become Catholic. We welcome you! It’s not about who’s right and wrong. It’s about the love of Jesus and His offer of Himself in His Church.

Is there a parish near you?

Greg

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

Matt, you are invited to become Catholic. We welcome you! It’s not about who’s right and wrong. It’s about the love of Jesus and His offer of Himself in His Church.

I appreciate the kind and welcoming attitude. However, my conscience will not let me join the Catholic Church. There are too many significant historical and Biblical obstacles.

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Matt,

p90:

However, my conscience will not let me join the Catholic Church. There are too many significant historical and Biblical obstacles.

That’s fair, if it’s a sincere difference of understanding.

Can we cease debating and just talk heart to heart without insulting each other’s intelligence?

The people in the Catholic Church myself included may not have always done things perfectly. Jesus entered the human race 2000 years ago and we are damaged by evil. Even Jesus’ ministry was not a smooth operation with denial by Peter and betrayal by Judas resulting in the killing of the Creator of the Universe.

Did we expect the growth of the Church not to be bumpy? Let’s be realistic. We can argue about Scripture and popes all day but the bottom line is that as the people of the Church organized and united, the main body of believers united under the Bishop of Rome. The other main Church, the Greek Church recognized the authority of the Roman Church in councils but not to the extent that they would unite with the Bishop of Rome as the head. Catholics believe it is the intention of Jesus that the Church of all believers would be united and this unity would include a hierarchy with one special leader who would speak for the Church. At the same time, this leader would commune and confer with others. When the pope speaks, I assure you he has conferred with many cardinals/bishops before making the pronouncement. Isn’t that the similar to how the presidency works? It’s not such a foreign idea.

Acts 1:15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers

Acts 2:14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice

Acts 8:3 Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church

Acts 9:1 Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord

Look at Saul, he became the author of many Scriptures, yet he originally was trying to destroy the Church!!!

Acts 9:1 "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Jesus equates persecuting the disciples with persecuting Him!

Acts 15:7 After much debate had taken place,** Peter got up** and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe

Anyone who reads Acts sincerely can see that Peter had a special place. Even if you don’t think the current pope is a successor of Peter, it is clear from Acts that the Church had a leader whose voice among believers carried a bit more weight. This is the model from Scripture.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the growth of the central unity of Christian believers. We believe that Scripture itself and our doctrines are the voice of Jesus Himself in His Church. It is not the Church of the pope or anyone else, it is the Church of Jesus, in the form that Jesus established. Have we done well. Yes, the Church has done much good in the world, especially bringing the Good News of Jesus to the world. Are we a Church of human sinners? Yes. What do you expect? The Bible itself should be a big clue that human nature is fallen.

One of the great gifts Jesus wants you to have is Himself in the Eucharist. He is born of Spirit (John 3:6) and therefore His flesh is spiritual not earthly flesh that profits nothing. He invites you to unite with Himself because He loves you and want you to have His life so that you may decrease and He may increase. He wishes you to be with Him in Heaven. In our Church you can have great confidence and faith that you will be in Heaven.

If you don’t believe what I have told you than that is for you to work out. However, I assure you I have spoken from the heart, as to why I am Catholic, not to mention that I have been drawn by God. I have no tricks, no fancy arguments, just our true Catholic belief.

Does that help?

Greg

 

[mayra_hart]

for me the perfect answer come from(2 th 2:15) " so then, brothers,stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you,whether by word of mouth or by letter". the verbalteaching by mouth has an equal authority with the written teachings of paul. this i quoted from the book born fundamentalist born again catholic by david b currie. is so odd that takes a previous fundamentalist to explain this to me a catholic. god bless

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

Does that help?

I know it was offered in a generous spirit, but it didn’t address any of the primary issues I have concerning Catholicism.

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

p90:

I know it was offered in a generous spirit, but it didn’t address any of the primary issues I have concerning Catholicism.

Do you agree, that for someone to pick up a Bible and claim they can explain all of it, with no background in its meaning, is preposterous?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

**2 Th 2:15 **…stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth…

Yes, that clearly puts to rest any argument about Sola Scriptura.

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

Do you agree, that for someone to pick up a Bible and claim they can explain all of it, with no background in its meaning, is preposterous?

I can agree to this.

~Matt