The Perfect Answer for Sola Scriptura

[p90]

fulloftruth:

I still haven’t heard from you on the connection between Matt 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22. Christ as the Son of David, re-estabolishing the Kingdom of David, and doing it under the guise of a Church. The parallels are glaring.

Unless you are referring to something else, you responded to my response to your comments on Matthew 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22 in post ten, and I responded to that in post twelve. I think I did post on the connection.

You still need to provide more evidence regarding your claim for me to accept it. Part of that involves adaquately addressing the concerns I raised in post four.

Acts 1:20 shows that th Apostles had successors

The passage doesn’t demonstrate that the office of the Papacy is to have successors. That’s like arguing the office of elder or deacon is to have successors because the Apostles had them. It’s an unwarranted association.

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello Matt,

p90:

The passage doesn’t demonstrate that the office of the Papacy is to have successors. That’s like arguing the office of elder or deacon is to have successors because the Apostles had them. It’s an unwarranted association.

You have asked for examples of oral tradition that St. Paul refers to in Scripture. Have you considered that the papacy is part of Church teaching passed orally or in Church letters outside of Scripture?

Please see my previous post also that considers the reasonableness of the papacy.

Greg

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

You have asked for examples of oral tradition that St. Paul refers to in Scripture. Have you considered that the papacy is part of Church teaching passed orally or in Church letters outside of Scripture?

Yes. If it was passed on in oral form, why do many fathers act and write if such a concept didn’t exist? When they interpret Matthew 16:18, discuss church government, or interact with the Pope on different issues, many of them write or do things that are contradictory to the concept of a Papacy.

It’s possible that the Papacy was contained in oral tradition outside of the Scriptures, but given the historical record, I find that highly unlikely.

Please see my previous post also that considers the reasonableness of the papacy.

What in particular did you want me to respond to? I saw a lot of appeals to philosophical preferences but little Scriptural evidence to back them.

~Matt

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Matt,

To further examine the concept of papacy, let’s explore Church authority in general. For example, what position of authority did St. Paul have that He should write letters of teaching to many Churches?

Greg

 

[mayra_hart]

about apostolic authority: in the ot, when god established his covenant with the nation of israel,he provided for a living,continuing authority in the mosaic priesthood. see mal 2:7;2chr19:11) this authority did not end when the ot was written;rather,it continued as a safeguard and authentic interpreter of sacred scripture. when christ establish his church,the new israel,he set up a living,continuing authority to teach, govern and sanctify in his name. this living authority is called "apostolic"because it began with the twelve apostles and continued with their succesors.it was this apostolic authority that would preserve and authentically interpret the revelation of jesus christ

 

[p90]

Greg_McPherran:

For example, what position of authority did St. Paul have that He should write letters of teaching to many Churches?

Paul was an apostle, giving him authority over the entire church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also seems to have cared for the entire church in addition to having authority over it (1 Corinthians 7:17). Finally, Paul views himself on the same level as the other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5), so we can probably expect him to do what the other apostles do.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

Hi Matt,

Sorry to butt in when you and Greg seem to be having a good dialogue, but I wanted to share this.

As a Catholic, I do recognize the primacy of Peter. However, I never knew Scripture said three different things in John 21:15-19. Jesus is talking to Peter. (Actually ‘read’ for the first time last week and was simply floored! I had always ‘read’ feed my sheep 3 times.) Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, and feed my sheep. This is seen as the lay people being the lambs, the ministers being the sheep. The ministers as the sheep help to take care of the lambs. But Peter was to not only feed the lambs and sheep, he was to tend the sheep. The Catholic beliefs of the Pope fit perfectly with this Scripture.

Maybe this Scripture will help you to at least understand the Catholic position. There certainly has been a development in the *understanding *of the primacy of the Pope, which Tradition backs up, but we do have in Scripture, a written record of Jesus giving Peter the task of tending the sheep, (tending the apostles).

God Bless

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Matt,

p90:

Paul was an apostle, giving him authority over the entire church.

1. How did St. Paul become an apostle?
2. Why was St. Paul’s authority recognized by the Churches?
3. Was it because Jesus called him? If so, how did the Churches know this or why did they believe this?
4. Was St. Paul ordained and authorized for his ministry by the Church?

Greg

 

[fulloftruth]

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

~Matt

Matt, if the Apostles assumed succession by there actions, and thier successors assumed successors and there were and are successors all the way to today, don’t you think your interpretation is a little lacking in reality. They did have successors and I think the oneous is on you to prove that succession was not intended and why. Also I would like to hear a refutation of 2000 years of history and successors. Succession is the only logical way to maintain loyalty of dogma, as proven with the splintering of the protestant church. Without an infallible authority to interpret and guard Scripture, then Scripture becomes a weapon for those in power, and it becomes un-enforcable as a rule of faith, because if enough people don’t agree with the Pastors interpretations then they leave, and start thier own church, therefore seperating the flock. Scripture therefore cannot be the only infallible rule of faith.

Steve

 

[mayra_hart]

acts 15: this give an account of the first church council, the council of jerusalem. called at the request of st paul, this council met to follow the law of moses as well as the law of christ. notice that there was much discussion among the apostles and presbyters. however, after peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. his statement ended the discussion. this council obviously considered st peter 's authority final. bless you all

 

[fulloftruth]

By Matt:

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.

Papal infallibility comes from the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth

Quote:Fulloftruth:
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.

Response by Matt:

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

I think the parrallel is in the way it was lived out by the Apostles and there successors. The fact is they had successors. Also Christ came to fulfill the Old Covenant, not do away with it. Since the new heavenly Jerusalem is the church and even Judas had a successor, why wouldn’t Peter have a successor. If the Church was to exist into eternity, then just like the US presidency, there must be successors with the Power and authority of the Person he is replacing or succeeding. Christ would not leave us without an authority to teach us and guide us with his authority. He said it himself, “I will be with you always,” “I will send you the paraclete,” “he who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects me.” There must be a Holy priesthood in order to keep and guard the faith and to transmit, and administer His Sacraments, which are the vehicles for grace in the Church. If you cannot see the need for an infallible authority other than Scripture, to maintain oneness, then I don’t know what else to say.

 

[p90]

mayra hart:

acts 15…notice that there was much discussion among the apostles and presbyters. however, after peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. his statement ended the discussion. this council obviously considered st peter 's authority final.

Acts 15:13ff says that James passed the last judgement. Acts 15:12 relates that though the crowd fell silent, it was to listen to Paul and Barnabas. I don’t see how Peter’s actions in the council can be read as reflection of his Papal authority.

I’ll get to the other four responses in this thread as time permits.

~Matt

 

[ahimsaman72]

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.

I wanted to comment on this first paragraph from your post #1if I may. Many people miss some basic facts here.

First, the early church already had the old testament canon. They had a basis for faith in a coming Messiah.

Second, after Jesus left the disciples, he gave them the charge in Mt. 28 to “go ye into all the world”. They were to be missionaries and teachers of the gospel to the whole world. The gospel writers wrote their accounts for the early believers and for the purpose of evangelism. Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus. Paul wrote his letters to various “churches”. Those letters remained with the individual churches. To be frank, there was no need for canonization. Individual churches and the church leaders (elders, bishops, deacons) were not to validate those letters. There is no indication of that. The letters were used for edification and teaching, not to be lorded over and manipulated. They didn’t have to figure out if Peter, Paul, Luke or other apostle’s writings were valid and inspired. That would be a given.

My conclusion here is that the Scriptures didn’t need people to validate them. They were valid by themselves. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Israelites didn’t wonder if it came from God. They knew God spoke to Moses and that was enough for them.

I’m glad that early believers assembled the New Testament Scriptures. But I reject the idea that they needed canonization from a group of people to say they were authentic.

As for the rest of the post, it’s been promulgated all over in other threads and I will not comment.

 

[oat_soda]

sola scriptura is a illogical doctrine that is unbiblical and self refuting. it is defined differently by every protestant further showing its worthlessness. what it truly means is every individual has the absolute right to interpret scripture. 2 tim 3:15 is a clear explanation of the usefullness of scripture.

2 tim 3:15-17 “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

note that paul is writing to timothy and not the general public. paul also knows that timothy has a correct understanding of scriptures because he say the he has “known” the holy scriptures from infancy. he also says “can” or “may” intruct thee to salvation. if sola scriptura was biblical, it would have to say this:

“when one knows the holy scriptures, it will instruct them to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, and is sufficent so that the man of God will be saved.”

but it doesn’t. so protestants are wrong.
.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

sola scriptura is a illogical doctrine that is unbiblical and self refuting. it is defined differently by every protestant further showing its worthlessness. what it truly means is every individual has the absolute right to interpret scripture. 2 tim 3:15 is a clear explanation of the usefullness of scripture.

That’s not the correct definition of sola scriptura. It means simply, “Bible alone.” It means that as it concerns the Christian faith, the Bible has the definitive say-so in all matters, thereby making tradition secondary. Look it up in your search engine and see for yourself. There are many legitimate resources available that can explain this to you.

2 tim 3:15-17 “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”
Note that paul is writing to timothy and not the general public. paul also knows that timothy has a correct understanding of scriptures because he say the he has “known” the holy scriptures from infancy. he also says “can” or “may” intruct thee to salvation. if sola scriptura was biblical, it would have to say this:

“when one knows the holy scriptures, it will instruct them to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, and is sufficent so that the man of God will be saved.”

but it doesn’t. so protestants are wrong.
.

I can look at this same verse and get the opposite meaning. Paul is writing this to Timothy, yes. Isn’t it fair to say that he is also speaking to his “son” in the faith? His brother in the faith? Why does that make any difference? I believe what it says. Again, your definition of sola scriptura comes into play here. We’re getting into salvation issues with this also, so I won’t say more here. Somehow I knew our paths would cross again, especially as concerns this doctrine.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi Matt,

1. How did St. Paul become an apostle?
2. Why was St. Paul’s authority recognized by the Churches?
3. Was it because Jesus called him? If so, how did the Churches know this or why did they believe this?
4. Was St. Paul ordained and authorized for his ministry by the Church?

Greg

1. According to his writings such as 2 Tim. 1:1, by “the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ”. I think you could also go back to his conversion and see what’s going on.
2. yes, it was
3. yes, again we can go back to his conversion and see all this
4. no, he was ordained and authorized by God, why would he need anything else? God is as high as you can go, right?

What is your point?

I know this was directed to someone else, please excuse me intruding, but I just had to reply .

 

[oat_soda]

That’s not the correct definition of sola scriptura. It means simply, “Bible alone.” It means that as it concerns the Christian faith, the Bible has the definitive say-so in all matters, thereby making tradition secondary. Look it up in your search engine and see for yourself. There are many legitimate resources available that can explain this to you.

this is an interesting topic. i will show you all the different interpretations later. but to say “bible alone” is my authority implies the absolute right of self interpretation. either your authority is the bible, or it’s the church. there is no other way to look at it.

I can look at this same verse and get the opposite meaning. Paul is writing this to Timothy, yes. Isn’t it fair to say that he is also speaking to his “son” in the faith? His brother in the faith? Why does that make any difference? I believe what it says.

it makes a big difference because he knows timothy well enough to make an assesment of his biblical knowledge. protestants are the ones who misinterpret and force words that are not there like **alone **and sufficent. Both of these words are used to define sola scriptura but are not found anywhere in the bible associated with scripture. Protestants are the ones who create a tradition of men, not catholics. we don’t force meanings that aren’t there. i challenge any protestant to find in the bible the words “scripture alone” or “scripture is sufficent”.

don’t you see the problem of you interpreting one way and me interpreting it differently? who is right? im using the bible alone too. if sola scriptura worked, we should understand this the same way.

 

[oat_soda]

definitions of sola scriptura:

The teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God.
carm.org/dictionary/dic_s.htm

SOLA SCRIPTURA –– (Latin expression meaning Scripture alone
reformed-theology.org/html/dictiona.htm

Sola Scriptura Latin meaning “The Scriptures alone.” The reformed doctrine of infallible authority. Scripture alone is the infallible and final authority in the Church for matters of doctrine and practice two-age.org/glossary.htm sola scriptura Scriptures alone as our rule and guide.fivesolas.com/glossary.htm Sola scriptura (Latin by Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible’s authority, and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority alongside the Bible or in addition to the Bible. wordiq.com/definition/Sola_scriptura

(“What is not biblical is not theological,” cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

Two of Luther’s most basic principles for Christian Reformation was that the only way to salvation was “faith alone” (sola fidei) and the only source of authority and guidance is scriptures (sola scriptura).

i’ve also seen it defined as “scripture alone is sufficent to lead you to salvation”.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

this is an interesting topic. i will show you all the different interpretations later. but to say “bible alone” is my authority implies the absolute right of self interpretation. either your authority is the bible, or it’s the church. there is no other way to look at it.
it makes a big difference because he knows timothy well enough to make an assesment of his biblical knowledge. protestants are the ones who misinterpret and force words that are not there like **alone **and sufficent. Both of these words are used to define sola scriptura but are not found anywhere in the bible associated with scripture. Protestants are the ones who create a tradition of men, not catholics. we don’t force meanings that aren’t there. i challenge any protestant to find in the bible the words “scripture alone” or “scripture is sufficent”.

don’t you see the problem of you interpreting one way and me interpreting it differently? who is right? im using the bible alone too. if sola scriptura worked, we should understand this the same way.

all people have traditions. protestants and catholics have started traditions. I think you would have to agree. all people force meanings that aren’t there, including you and me and the guy down the street.

i don’t need interpretation to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither do you and neither do little children or anyone else for that matter. the gospel message is simple. it takes neither the Catholic church, nor any other person to validate what has already been written. Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. The apostles creed sums up very well the Christian faith. It’s not as complicated as people make it out to be. Actually, given the apostles creed itself is sufficient to salvation.

those who want power and thrive on it make it more complicated.

 

[mayra_hart]

it goes against common sense. any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live must have a living,continuing authority to guard,guarantee,and officially interpret it.:bowdown: otherwise ,chaos reings as everyone interprets the document according to his personal whim.