What's Your Authority?

[SjMelnychuk]

He only did that because someone insisted on adding works or merit to faith in regard to salvation.
Eph.2:9 “Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Luther did not create salvation by faith only.

Faith was already doing it alone.

The only place that says faith alone in any verse is found in James 2:24

You are NOT justified by faith alone.

Martin Luther TRIED to subtract the book of James from canonized Scripture but failed in his attempt. Now how do you explain how we’re justified and what would it mean if we are not justified.

Clearly we are saved through the grace of baptism and saved by faith but not by faith that is apart from works. Saved by faith alone is Scripturally inaccurate.

We are saved by grace through faith absolutely but where in the bible does it say saved by faith alone?

 

[rainman10]

I think of my pastor as “papa” too. He has authority over all things in the church, but the last word belongs to God, thru the bible and the conviction of the individual by the HS in him.

So, then, eazyduzit, buy your comments above, you don’t even need a pastor. And if you are led by God, through the Bible and the conviction of the individual by the Holy Spirit in him, then you the final authority on earth. Because if the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then you can teach no error.

 

[LionHeart777]

What is the current ecclesiastical mechanism for this to happen?

If you could be more specific, maybe I could help. Are you looking for something in Canon Law specifically, about the hypothetical of a Pope who were to be a heretic? I’m not sure how much I could help out there because I don’t believe it’s there. Also, could you please clarify, for what to happen ( you said “for this to happen”)?

Thanks,

 

[Per_Crucem]

If you could be more specific, maybe I could help. Are you looking for something in Canon Law specifically, about the hypothetical of a Pope who were to be a heretic? I’m not sure how much I could help out there. Also, could you please clarify, for what to happen?

Thanks,

For the removal of a Pope to happen; and yes, sorry, I mean with canon law.

 

[LionHeart777]

For the removal of a Pope to happen; and yes, sorry, I mean with canon law.

I don’t think there is anthing dealing with this specific hypothetical, but I’m no expert. In this case (according to that opinion as I understand it) no one would be removing a Pope but someone who has ceased to be Pope.

 

[LionHeart777]

The sedevacantists believe that the Chair of Peter is currently empty and has been for some time (at least the last few Popes); they of course are not the Church and they are wrong.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

So, then, eazyduzit, buy your comments above, you don’t even need a pastor. And if you are led by God, through the Bible and the conviction of the individual by the Holy Spirit in him, then you the final authority on earth. Because if the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then you can teach no error.

Well, I’m certain eazyduzit would say the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. However, we can attest to the 30,000+ denominations as well as the various cults that have existed over the years, that not all people are truly listening to the Holy Spirit.

It goes back to the question as to whether or not the Bible is the sole rule / authority of faith and life. However, there is a wide range of debate when it comes to how Sacred Scripture is interpreted. Everyone believes they have the right interpretation. The question remains, WHO among all the diverse denominations, WHO has the right interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Eg.

Which is right? Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib?

Which is right? Millenium, AMillenial, Post-Millenial?

When Jesus returns, who’s left behind? The believers or non-believers?

Are people truly being baptized with the Holy Spirit or is that a demonic expression? And if people are praying in tongues is it a discernible language or “spiritual language” or does it even matter?

Should women wear head coverings in Church?

Does God bless same-sex marriage?

Was the relationship between David and Jonathan a gay relationship?

Oneness Theology? Is that an accurate description of how the Triune nature of God is manifested? Or does God exist as 3 persons as 1 God?

Can you lose salvation? Or do you believe in once saved always saved?

Did God establish an Apostolic Authority?

I mean, I’m just picking out some of the most heated debated in the Protestant Churches currently. Nobody seems to agree and each side believes they have the correct infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Sure, many just say, these issues are good enough to be simply a debatable topic. However, then you have non-negotiable topics within the Protestant Churches …

1. Faith Alone
2. Triune God - Jesus is more than just a Prophet, He is God.
3. Bible as the supreme authority - yet nobody wants to believe they could be wrong when it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

The question remains:

Where in the bible does it say the bible is the sole rule of faith. What about the verse that says the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. Question is, if the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, aren’t Catholics right to turn to both the Church with both Tradition and Sacred Scripture? If the bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth the bible basically says that when it comes to knowing TRUTH the pillar and foundation is the Church! And from the Church we have both Sacred Scripture AND Tradition to guide us in knowing TRUTH.

Yet when the bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth the majority of Protestant believers tend to just ignore that verse. Just like James 2:24 is ignored when it says that we are not justified by faith alone.

For every verse that is given to state the claim for “Faith Alone” teachings there’s a verse that pretty well sums it all with saved by grace through faith plus works. And in truth, it’s all by grace because all that we do is by the grace of God. We can’t even breath apart from the grace of God because each breath we have is a gift given by God, a life we’re called to be stewards of. But for whatever reason, many Protestant seem to get hung up on “works” as if Catholics have a “works” base faith when we don’t.

Next time I post a comment on this thread I’ll post as many scripture verses as I can find that debunk “Faith Alone” teachings. It’s just that after working over night I’m rather exhausted.

But I think if this dialogue is going to produce any fruit at all, I think people have to be willing to set aside their perceived understanding of the Catholic Church and perhaps answer some of our questions.

Like for example, How do we receive the justification of sin?

If you say through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour according to James 2:24 that is only partial truth. If we have faith and we believe, actions follow but these actions are something we do. Even to believe is something that we are doing by the grace of God. We’re given the grace to believe. We are given the grace to cooperate with God at work in our lives. So there is God at work and there is our willingness to cooperate with God.

Doesn’t the bible say …

Our Father who art in Heaven … forgive us our sins AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US?

So if we don’t forgive others their sin against us the bible says we won’t be forgiven.

So we have to forgive in order to be forgiven.

Doesn’t the bible say in James 2:24 that we are NOT justified by FAITH ALONE? So if we’re not justified by faith alone doesn’t that imply that works play a role in our justification? How can anyone believe that we’ll be forgiven of our sin with just belief when we’re actually told in the bible that in order to be forgiven of our sin we must forgive others, well, repent of our unforgiveness when there is unforgiveness? Clearly, there is something we must do by grace and through faith YES but not faith alone. I once heard a preacher say, “we’re saved by faith alone but not a faith that is alone” tell me, does that make any logical sense whatsoever?

It doesn’t … works and faith work together in the justification of our sin by grace in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Anyway … next time I’ll come equipped with as many scripture verses as I can find.

 

[Magdalena59]

He only did that because someone insisted on adding works or merit to faith in regard to salvation…

Umm. That would have been God. The Holy Spirit where it is written in the book of James five times:

**James 2:14 **What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

And then he answers:

*2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead

2:20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,

2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone*

2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Of course Jesus had a few things to say also while he was teaching:
*
John 9:4 We must work the works of him who sent me

John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.*

The Holy Spirit again, through Paul this time.

*Galatians 5:6 faith working through love.

Phillipians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;*

It is not faith alone, or works alone. It is faith and works together.

.
Eph.2:9 “Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Luther did not create salvation by faith only.

Faith was already doing it alone.

 

[Erich]

Erich;12802367:

Some translations of 1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.”

So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval. Hence, my question to you about whether or not those who do not have God’s can approval be saved? Yes or no?
As I have understood tne letter, Paul is not saying that some have lost their salvation, but that they are yet carnal. His solution was to remind them that they are the “temple of God”.
However, if one is lost, God is always willing to give a second chance, based on true repentance. Thank God for His abundant mercy.

That doesn’t answer the question about whether or not those who do not have God’s can approval be saved – a question which has to do with the false notion that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians –** the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church…they were all Christians** – cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.

Those who believe in salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide), would say that as long as one has faith, it doesn’t matter what else they believe, they’re still saved. So, those who believe in different doctrines, as long as they all have faith, all get saved – all have God’s “approval.” Yet, we see here from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were Corinthians who had faith, but they obviously believed and did things that caused division in the congregation, and that these beliefs and/or actions resulted in some of them not receiving God’s approval. So, can you be saved if you do not have God’s approval? It doesn’t make any sense to me that God would say of anyone who was saved that they did not have His approval, would He?

I suspect you didn’t answer the question because you *can’t. *If you had answered “Yes” then you are basically saying that God’s approval or disapproval doesn’t really mean a thing. I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If you had answered “No” then you would have been admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditons cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Let’s do an expository bible study on the book of James !! :dancing:

James 2:14-26

Faith Without Works Is Dead

Verse 14:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Faith Alone teaching (which began with Martin Luther in and around the period of the early 1500s) says YES - THIS FAITH CAN SAVE … in fact, WE’RE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH AND FAITH ALONE. In other words, what we do has no bearing on our justification.

Verse 15-17:
If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

So if we’re justified by faith and by faith alone why does it say in James 2:17 basically saying that faith without works is of no use, faith by itself is of no use … what does faith by itself mean? FAITH BY ITSELF = FAITH ALONE … these verse continue to compare true faith with the cooperation of action WORKS to actually do more than just wish the poor warmth and satisfaction of food but to actually provide food and clothing to the poor. What good is to just wish the poor warmth and satisfaction? So is faith without works… in fact, faith without works is dead.

Verses 18-20:
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Sound like a familiar argument? Even the demons believe! So is just believing enough? In fact, these are strong words … calling the person who believes in justification by faith and by faith alone as a foolish person. hmmm “Even the demons believe – and shudder!” Faith apart from works is uesless. And if that’s not enough, the writer of James goes on to explain in further detail about Abraham offering up his son Isaac in verse 21 and in verse 22 said that faith was completed by his works.

Verse 21-24:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And here’s the kicker, if we’re still not getting it. The writing of James goes on then to talk about Rehab the prostitute! It was like, ok, just in case you are a little slow to getting what I am saying, just for further clarification, take a look at Rehab.

Verse 25:
And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

So that’s a good question, wasn’t Rehab justified by works when she received the messengers? And just in case somebody brings up the old argument "ya, but that’s the OT, we’re a NT church… the book of James is an NT book writing to the NT church… and comparing the works of Rehab to what justified her. And finally, if we’re still not getting what the writing is talking about … the writer continues to compare the cooperation between faith and works with our justification to that between the body and spirit. The body is dead without the spirit… the body needs the spirit, the two cooperate with each other. Without the spirit the body decays and returns to ashes. So also faith apart from works is dead.

Verse 26:
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Now taking a closer look at the cooperation between faith and works

To believe is to engage the will to believe … to believe is something we do but we cannot believe apart from the grace of God to believe. Everything we say, do, and believe in is centred upon the grace of God at work in our lives to make that possible… but it is the grace of God that makes possible our belief in God and it is the grace of God that enables our faith to be fulfilled by our works. Either way, to have faith and believe in God is our response to God, it is us cooperating with God at work in our lives.

James 2:24: WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS NOT FAITH ALONE

I know this is getting a little off topic from the original topic ie WHAT’s YOUR AUTHORITY … So , perhaps when we’re done discussing Sola Fide we can move on to discuss Sola Scriptura ?

 

[eazyduzit]

It would appear that Catholics have a knack for making the bible inconsistent with itself.
Are there not many verses that exclude works from salvation?
Here are but a few.

Titus 3:5. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done…”
Titus 3:7 “That being justified by his grace…”
Rm. 4:5. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him…”
Rm. 4:6. “God imputeth righteousness without works…”
Gal. 3:2"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?"
Eph. 2:9 “Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Does it not seem that James is opposed to Paul? (As many have pointed out)
Should we be satisfied with this?
Should we base our interpretation on one chapter or consider the whole letter?

Beginning with chapter one James comments on salvation in v. 21: “Receive with meekness the engrafted WORD which is able to save your souls”.
Works are not added to this salvation. Then he says, “be doers of the word and not hearers only”.
In ch. 2, James is not talking about being saved, but being justified. In v. 22 he explaines that by works our faith is made complete, not salivation. Or as Paul says “let your faith work itself out.” Not work for your salvation.

James is not saying: Faith plus works = salvation
Rather. Works flowing from a saving faith = justification

 

[eazyduzit]

It would appear that Catholics have a knack for making the bible inconsistent with itself.
Are there not many verses that exclude works from salvation?
Here are but a few.

Titus 3:5. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done…”
Titus 3:7 “That being justified by his grace…”
Rm. 4:5. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him…”
Rm. 4:6. “God imputeth righteousness without works…”
Gal. 3:2"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?"
Eph. 2:9 “Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Does it not seem that James is opposed to Paul? (As many have pointed out)
Should we be satisfied with this?
Should we base our interpretation on one chapter or consider the whole letter?

Beginning with chapter one James comments on salvation in v. 21: “Receive with meekness the engrafted WORD which is able to save your souls”.
Works are not added to this salvation. Then he says, “be doers of the word and not hearers only”.
In ch. 2, James is not talking about being saved, but being justified. In v. 22 he explaines that by works our faith is made complete, not salivation. Or as Paul says “let your faith work itself out.” Not work for your salvation.

James is not saying: Faith plus works = salvation
Rather. Works flowing from a saving faith = justification

 

[SjMelnychuk]

More like Sola Fide is inconsistent with Sacred Scripture.

The Catholic Faith is NOT a works based faith. Catholics do not teach that works by itself saves or that merit is what saves. The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by works, that works complete faith.

A good question to ask is what inspirer the writer of James to write this letter to the Church in Rome.

The answer: to bring further clarification to the justification of our sins. To bring further clarification about the relationship between faith and works within the context to justification of sin.

Salvation is by grace given through the gift of baptism. That is a grace and has nothing to do with works. However, to bring further clarification … To believe is the engagement of our will and intellect, it is our response to the grace of God, our response is something we do in cooperation with the grace of God at work in our lives.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Are there not many verses that exclude works from salvation?
Here are but a few

Does it not seem that James is opposed to Paul? (As many have pointed out)
Should we be satisfied with this?
Should we base our interpretation on one chapter or consider the whole letter?

Truth is, many Catholics bring up specific verses that pretty much debunk, quite boldly justification by faith alone because it would appear that many Protestants tend to ignore not merely just a verse here or there but essentially ignoring the book of James altogether. The only response given when faced with James 2:24 that says we’re justified by works not by faith alone, the only reason Protestants can give is yet another relatively new thought, that came around the same time, is the supposed story of James opposing Paul in doctrine. The Early Church never taught that James and Paul were in conflict with one another. That teaching came about in the 16th century to try and validate Sola Fide teaching. However, historically James wrote the letter after Paul’s letter not opposing saved by grace through faith but rather to bring further clarification of what completes our faith! Nowhere in the bible does it say we are justified by faith alone.

Beginning with chapter one James comments on salvation in v. 21: “Receive with meekness the engrafted WORD which is able to save your souls”.

In order to receive we engage the will and intellect, to receive is something we are doing in cooperation with the grace of God. By definition if it is something we are doing it’s a work. Receiving is something that is done on our part. We have a choice to either receive or to reject. Therefore, receiving is done in cooperation as a work to cooperate with the grace of God.

Then he says, “be doers of the word and not hearers only”.

AMEN …

In ch. 2, James is not talking about being saved, but being justified. In v. 22 he explaines that by works our faith is made complete, not salivation. Or as Paul says “let your faith work itself out.”

Another way to put it … To work out our salvation.

As Catholics teach salvation is a gift given through the grace of baptism.

Works complete our faith = faith plus works

Again SALVATION = Grace given through baptism

JUSTIFICATION = works complete faith without works faith is dead.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I don’t think there is anthing dealing with this specific hypothetical, but I’m no expert. In this case (according to that opinion as I understand it) no one would be removing a Pope but someone who has ceased to be Pope.

If I’m not mistaken, at least one pope was excommunicated. But that was a long time ago. I’m not sure how, exactly, it works.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If you had answered “No” then you would have been admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditons cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.

This is the point I’m trying to make. I was just going the long way around.

Major differences from within the Protestant traditions from one church to another are just glossed over but these are rather significant differences even though there is civility within the dialigue between various denominations. It still shouldn’t get glossed over or ignored.

Going back to the topic of this thread “what’s Your Authority” is a significant topic that one cannot ignore.

People that say well Jesus is the supreme authority. However, Jesus gave the ability to exercise His authority on earth. The debate is really, did Jesus establish Apostolic Authority or did He give that authority for all to use?

The bible cannot be the sole rule of faith / authority when there is such wide disagreements in doctrine that cannot simply be glossed over and never mind the fact that the Church didn’t have what we now call the Bible for at least the first 300 to 400 years so prior to the Bible what did the Church have? Well, obviously for the first 300 to 400 years the Bible couldn’t possibly have been seen as the sole rule of faith, obviously before the Bible was Church Tradition. Furthermore Sola Scriptura wasn’t even taught until at least around about the time of Martin Luther who also taught Sola Fide. Well, if these teachings weren’t being taught in the first 1500 years of the Churches existence why believe a doctrine that was never taught historically in fact why believe a doctrine that has been historically declared as heretical teaching? These differences don’t need to cause strife but it can’t be glossed over either.

 

[Erich]

Well, obviously for the first 300 to 400 years the Bible couldn’t possibly have been seen as the sole rule of faith

The Bible couldn’t possibly have been seen as the sole rule of faith for the next 1100 to 1200 years, either. Not everyone had their own Bibles (and even if they did, most couldn’t read them).

From this link:If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. …

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. …

First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular. …

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can’t be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian. … However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the “developed world” was undeveloped. …

Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to) … He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine … He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine.

Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn’t have time to do this … Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn’t have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. … for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. “Everything else,” as the British historian James Burke put it, “was just something you ate with bread”—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and … malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. … Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill … [that] does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. …

What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan.
So… what’s your authority, if not the Bible Alone?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

The Bible couldn’t possibly have been seen as the sole rule of faith for the next 1100 to 1200 years, either. Not everyone had their own Bibles (and even if they did, most couldn’t read them).

From this link:If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. …

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. …

First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular. …

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can’t be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian. … However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the “developed world” was undeveloped. …

Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to) … He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine … He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine.

Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn’t have time to do this … Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn’t have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. … for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. “Everything else,” as the British historian James Burke put it, “was just something you ate with bread”—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and … malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. … Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill … [that] does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. …

What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan.
So… what’s your authority, if not the Bible Alone?

 

[eazyduzit]

The Bible couldn’t possibly have been seen as the sole rule of faith for the next 1100 to 1200 years, either. Not everyone had their own Bibles (and even if they did, most couldn’t read them).

From this link:If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. …

Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy. …

First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide …the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular. …

Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can’t be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian…

Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to) …

Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts

Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn’t have time to do this … Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays—as Protestants stress to their own members …

Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn’t have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. … for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. “Everything else,” as the British historian James Burke put it, “was just something you ate with bread”—as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and … malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. … Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.

Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill … [that] does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. …

What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God’s plan.
So… what’s your authority, if not the Bible Alone?

Your premise that the gospel too complicated for the average person to grasp is an old and pernicious fallacy. If so, the infant church would not have flourished as it did. Neither would the Reformation have succeeded if it only could be understood by the scholars. It was no coincidence that the printing press and the translation of the bible into common languages and the Reformation appeared at the same time. In the end, every man is responsible for his own faith. St. Paul says: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves,”. Doing this requires one to have an understanding of the faith. But he also warnes: “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”.

Irenaeus, in his book,“Against Heresies”, proposed that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to “humbly accept one doctrinal authority-episcopal councils”. He did not say the Pope or the or any permanent central authority. Most all churches accept the councils up to Chalcedon. The attempt to use disagreements as an excuse to consolidate power is not the way of Christ. St. Peter said to “lead by example”. Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Jesus did not say or guarantee to any church that it “would never pass out of existence”. He merely predicted that hell ( or the grave or death) would not prevail. However, as seen in Revelation, He will remove the H.S. from a church that becomes too worldly and doesn’t repent. This has happened with several liberal churches which will not be mentioned.

Sola Scriptura is actually only half of God’s plan. The other half is the Holy Spirit. They both must work together.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Your premise that the gospel too complicated for the average person to grasp is an old and pernicious fallacy. If so, the infant church would not have flourished as it did. Neither would the Reformation have succeeded if it only could be understood by the scholars. It was no coincidence that the printing press and the translation of the bible into common languages and the Reformation appeared at the same time. In the end, every man is responsible for his own faith. St. Paul says: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves,”. Doing this requires one to have an understanding of the faith. But he also warnes: “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”.

Irenaeus, in his book,“Against Heresies”, proposed that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to “humbly accept one doctrinal authority-episcopal councils”. He did not say the Pope or the or any permanent central authority. Most all churches accept the councils up to Chalcedon. The attempt to use disagreements as an excuse to consolidate power is not the way of Christ. St. Peter said to “lead by example”. Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Jesus did not say or guarantee to any church that it “would never pass out of existence”. He merely predicted that hell ( or the grave or death) would not prevail. However, as seen in Revelation, He will remove the H.S. from a church that becomes too worldly and doesn’t repent. This has happened with several liberal churches which will not be mentioned.

Sola Scriptura is actually only half of God’s plan. The other half is the Holy Spirit. They both must work together.

Explain then, why the Bible says the CHUCH is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH. Doesn’t it then seem logical that God would preserve His Church from error if His Church is the pillar and foundation of TRUTH? And even if the “other half is the Holy Spirit” and even if God is supreme Authority, doesn’t seem logical that Jesus would allow for His Authority to be exercised in the way He intended?

Question remains …

Either Jesus established Apostolic Authority or He gave authority to each and every individual… the problem with authority being given to each and every individual is the fact that it then implies a dependency on ones ability to interpret Sacred Scripture… as we’ve seen over the last 500 years or so, a great multitude of people interpreting Sacred Scripture wrongly.

Before the Bible, what did the Church have? TRADITION

In the bible the Apostles have commended members for adhering to the TRADITION passed down from the Apostles. Just what do you suppose is TRADITION?

And if Sola Scriptura was a necessity ie sole rule of faith wouldn’t the Apostles have made sure that every common Christian had a copy of Sacred Scripture … oh but wait, it wasn’t even canonized until quite a few HUNDRED years ago … so, Sola Scriptura cannot be the case, other wise there wouldn’t be TRADITION and Sacred Scripture… So, again, what do you suppose is the TRADITION? And how do you suppose this TRADITION was passed down from the Apostles to the rest of the Church?