Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Franz]

to kinsman

2 Tim. 3:16. The Greek for “inspired” is theopneustos, “God-breathed.” They’re the very words of God Himself. There is no higher authority than God God’s Word (cf. Heb. 6:13). It’s quite simple my friend.

So let me get something straight. You trust the Bible as God’s inerrant word, even though there are so many translations and no original copies left, and we are relying on copies of copies of copies from different languages. You trust this to be true and accurate. Again, there are no original transcripts, the Catholic Church preserved the writings and made copies and you trust this as being completely error free because the Bible is error free. Do I have this right? Your contention is that the Holy Spirit protected the “written” word of God. Just want to clarify.

 

[Kinsman]

BobCatholic:

That’s the rub: Kinsman confuses his interpretation of scripture with the scripture he is interpreting. HE THINKS IT IS THE SAME EXACT THING! Of course, it is not the same thing.

And would you say the same for your “magesterium?”

And then he’ll probably say “I’m not interpreting scripture!”

Not at all. I do interpret Scripture. In order to read something you must interpret it. You read this post, you interpreted it at the same time.

Kinsman has to answer the question: “Am I personally infallible?”
The answer is no.

Only God is infallible. NO MAN, apart from Jesus Christ, is infallible. But that doesn’t mean I can’t understand what is clearly written in God’s inerrant Word. “Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might KNOW the things FREELY GIVEN TO US BY GOD…” “But the naturual man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised…” (1 Cor. 3:12-16). Makes me wonder!

 

[Franz]

Kinsman, I posted something to you 2 posts ago.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

And would you say the same for your “magesterium?”

Nope. You misrepresent what I’m saying, showing your uninfallible interpreting of words.

Not at all. I do interpret Scripture. In order to read something you must interpret it.

Good. You at least have the honesty to admit that. According to sola scriptura what is authoritative? Scripture or your interpretation of scripture? If your interpretation of scripture is not authoritative, why should anyone accept your interpretation of scripture (including you?) Doing so is a violation of Sola Scriptura, unless you believe both are the same, in which case where is that in the Bible?

You read this post, you interpreted it at the same time.Only God is infallible. NO MAN, apart from Jesus Christ, is infallible.

So you admit you’re not infallible in your interpretation of scripture?

But that doesn’t mean I can’t understand what is clearly written in God’s inerrant Word.

So what you’re saying is that you infallibly determined that a literal (or literalist) interpretation is required for that verse (and others) as well?

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Now, are you going to answer my infamous 4 questions? If you don’t know the answers, please just admit it. I won’t make fun of you if you do. You admitted you do interpret scripture and I didn’t make fun of you.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

2 Tim. 3:16. The Greek for “inspired” is theopneustos, “God-breathed.” They’re the very words of God Himself. There is no higher authority than God God’s Word (cf. Heb. 6:13). It’s quite simple my friend.

I agree, there is no hight authority than God’s word. That isn’t the claim that you made. Your claim was that there is no higher authority than God’s WRITTEN word. That’s the scripture I was requesting. What you’ve shown me here is that God’s written word is AUTHORITATIVE, something on which we agree. This verse does not, however, state or imply that God’s written word is “the highest authority”. Which scripture do you believe supports that idea? Thanks!

---

In Christ,
***Nancy ***

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by BobCatholic
That’s the rub: Kinsman confuses his interpretation of scripture with the scripture he is interpreting. HE THINKS IT IS THE SAME EXACT THING! Of course, it is not the same thing.

Kinsman:

And would you say the same for your “magesterium?”

Catholics believe that the magesterium has the AUTHORITY to infallibley interpret scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit, whereas each individual Protestant seems to claim this authority for himself.

---

***Do you, personally, have the God-given authority to infallbiely interpret scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit? ***

---

If so, how can you be infallibley certain when many who hold conflicting and contradictory interpretations make the same claim?

---

If not, who IS your infallible interpreter of scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit?

---

Thanks!

---

In Christ,
***Nancy ***

 

[SPOKENWORD]

I agree, there is no hight authority than God’s word. That isn’t the claim that you made. Your claim was that there is no higher authority than God’s WRITTEN word. That’s the scripture I was requesting. What you’ve shown me here is that God’s written word is AUTHORITATIVE, something on which we agree. This verse does not, however, state or imply that God’s written word is “the highest authority”. Which scripture do you believe supports that idea? Thanks!

---

In Christ,
***Nancy ***

The written Word was Gods authoritive voice when spoken by Jesus.So I would say its of the highest authority.

 

[Kinsman]

Franz:

So let me get something straight. You trust the Bible as God’s inerrant word, even though there are so many translations and no original copies left, and we are relying on copies of copies of copies from different languages. You trust this to be true and accurate. Again, there are no original transcripts, the Catholic Church preserved the writings and made copies and you trust this as being completely error free because the Bible is error free. Do I have this right? Your contention is that the Holy Spirit protected the “written” word of God. Just want to clarify.

Well, of course there’s no such things as “original copies.” What we don’t have are the actual originals. It would have been impossible to preserve them; God works in this real world whcih is subject to the second law of thermodynamics. But we do have thousands of copies of Greek manuscripts. The western church adopted Latin as its official language and those monks (who did most of the copying) translated Greek manuscripts into Latin. But the Greek manuscripts are the most valuable because the N.T. was originally written in Greek. The Eastern church retained the Greek language and their monks continued to produce copies in Greek. Christendom maintains that the originals were inerrant. The extant copies of the Greek manuscripts have what are called “variants.” But these, relatively speaking, are extremely minor. And when all the manuscripts are examined we can get very close to the originals via what is called “textural criticism.” We are not relying on as you say, “copies of copies of copies of different languages.” We rely on the extant Greek manuscripts. Translations, like our English translation, are done from a Greek text. Now the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and the Jewish scribes preserved those writings through the process of copying, as well. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has served to verify that what we have today in the Old Testament Scriptures is VERY accurate. The Jewish scribes took the task of copying their Scriptures very seriously because they knew them to be the Word of God.

Because by nature men prefer a lie that makes them comfortable, and therefore choose mediators who, right before their very eyes change the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25), it is important that the man of God, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, read and study God’s written Word, that he may be adequate to test the spirits (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 2:2; 1 Thess. 5:21). See Acts 17:11-12.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

Only God is infallible. NO MAN, apart from Jesus Christ, is infallible.

Papal infallibility of often quite misunderstood. Jesus is infallible because he is God. He is infalllible in every way by virtue of who he is. That is quite different from papal infallibility.

---

The pope, by virtue of the office he holds, is protected BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (not of himself) by ever OFFICIALLY TEACHING ERROR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS.

---

Papal infallibility is really very limited. He’s not infallible in everything, ONLY when officially teaching as the successor of Peter, ONLY when what he is teaching is binding on all believers, ONLY when it’s a matter of faith or morals. Then, he’s able to do so ONLY because he’s under the direct protection of the holy Spirit. It’s entirely God’s doing.

---

Remember, it’s a protection against officially TEACHING error. He’s not protected from sin. He’s not inspired to teach. He’s protected from teaching error.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t understand what is clearly

written in God’s inerrant Word.
That might be true but for two things:

---

1) Disagreement among believers as to what is clearly written in scripture.

---

2) Disagreement among believers as to what those clear teachings mean.

---

If there are conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture with each individual interpreter claiming that HIS interpretation is “clearly” the right one, then perhaps it’s really not that clear. The only thing that IS clear is that conflicting ideas can’t all “clearly” be right at the same time.

“Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might KNOW the things FREELY GIVEN TO US BY GOD…” "But the naturual man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness

to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised…" (1 Cor. 3:12-16).
The assumption here is that the individual interpretor of scripture is really the one who understands, and those who’s interpretations conflict with and contradict his are the one who “cannot understand them”.

 

[Kinsman]

SPOKENWORD:

That sounds good to me.

So that the man of God may be FULLY competent and EQUIPED for every good work.

Ahhh, do I perceive a spiritually regenerated man of God? One who is able to understand spiritual things?

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Kinsman:

Ahhh, do I perceive a spiritually regenerated man of God? One who is able to understand spiritual things?

We are told to walk by faith, not by sight. I prefer to walk in the Spirit. The spiritual realm is above the earthly realm.

 

[Kinsman]

Catholics believe that the magesterium has the AUTHORITY to infallibley interpret scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit,

First of all I will not reply to those who submit posts in colored and large type. One cannot quote except having to make a lot of changes.

Yes, ROMAN Catholics believe this, but it’s a BELIEF. An acceptance of what they claim. All you have to stand on is your faith in that claim, no FACT. It is things like these that make a ROMAN “Catholic” a “Romanist.” A Greek “Orthodox” doesn’t believe this.

 

[Sherlock]

Spokenword,

You wrote: “The written Word was Gods authoritive voice when spoken by Jesus. So I would say its of the highest authority”

First off, how is a written word spoken? Doesn’t the spoken word have to come first? Didn’t Jesus need to speak before others wrote it down?

Also, John’s Gospel speaks of the many other things that Jesus did that were not written down. Presumably Jesus was not mute at these times—so, using your statement, I would have to conclude that the words of Jesus that WERE written down have higher authority than the ones that weren’t. Where is this distinction to be found in Scripture? Did John say, “But whatever Jesus said that is not written down is less important and less authoratative than what I have written here.”

Catholics hold to the whole of the deposit of Faith, oral and written.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

SPOKENWORD:

The written Word was Gods authoritive voice when spoken by Jesus.So I would say its of the highest authority.

The fact that the written word was God’s authoritative voice when spoken by Jesus is what makes scripture AUTHORITATIVE. However, the words that Jesus spoke to the apostles were NOT everything that God had to reveal to mankind. Jesus Himself says so in scripture:

---

---

John 16:12

---

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

---

**Jesus’ words that are recorded in scripture cannot be the highest authority because the many more things that He had to say that the holy Spirit would reveal later have to be of EQUAL authority. (They’re Jesus’ words, after all. They have to be). These “many more things” that aren’t recorded in scripture are what the Church refers to as “Tradition”. **

---

Scripture and Tradition together are what the Church refers to as the “deposit of faith”, making up, in its entirely, God’s revelation to mankind.

---

---

---

**

---

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsaman,

You haven’t addressed the points I made—and my posts are not in large or colored type.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

It is things like these that make a ROMAN “Catholic” a “Romanist.”

If the belief that the Roman Catholic Church’s Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, is authoritative for interpreting scripture make them a “Roman-ist”, does the protestant belief that a personal magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, makes them an “Ego-ist?” (“me-ism”)

Hmmm…

More proof that Sola Scriptura is really Solo Ego (“Just Me”)

 

[BobCatholic]

Sherlock:

Kinsaman,

You haven’t addressed the points I made—and my posts are not in large or colored type.

Yeah, he hasn’t addressed my points as well, the infamous 4 questions are still unanswered.

And my posts are not in large or colored type. I’m too lazy for that

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Nancy
**Catholics believe that the magesterium has the AUTHORITY to infallibley interpret scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit,* *

Kinsman:

First of all I will not reply to those who submit posts in colored and large type. One cannot quote except having to make a lot of changes

.

LOL!! The large font must be why a couple people have accused me of shouting. Sorry abou that. I didn’t realize tha the color caused problems. It’s just easier for me to see when I’m going through the forums.

Yes, ROMAN Catholics believe this, but it’s a BELIEF. An acceptance of what they claim

. All you have to stand on is your faith in that claim, no FACT. It is things like these that make a ROMAN “Catholic” a “Romanist.” A Greek “Orthodox” doesn’t believe this
Likewise, you have faith that you, personally, are guided by the holy Spirit to an infallible interpretation of scripture, as do others who hold conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture. Of course, someone is wrong while firmly believing that he is right. It always boils down to authority. Did God leave a single authority through whom he would teach the rest of us, or did God leave everyone to be his own authority, even though these different authorities draw conflicting and contradictory conclusions.

Who do you believe has the authority to infallibley interpret scripture under the guidance of the holy Spirit?

.

 

[RNRobert]

BobCatholic:

Yeah, he hasn’t addressed my points as well, the infamous 4 questions are still unanswered.

And he still hasn’t told me where I can find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

The fact that the written word was God’s authoritative voice when spoken by Jesus is what makes scripture AUTHORITATIVE. However, the words that Jesus spoke to the apostles were NOT everything that God had to reveal to mankind. Jesus Himself says so in scripture:

---

---

John 16:12

---

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

---

Jesus’ words that are recorded in scripture cannot be the highest authority because the many more things that He had to say that the holy Spirit would reveal later have to be of EQUAL authority. (They’re Jesus’ words, after all. They have to be). These “many more things” that aren’t recorded in scripture are what the Church refers to as “Tradition”.

---

Scripture and Tradition together are what the Church refers to as the “deposit of faith”, making up, in its entirely, God’s revelation to mankind.

---

---

---

**

---

So much for 2timothy3-16. FULLY COMPETENT and EQUIPPED.I guess we needed more than Timothy talked about.