Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Sherlock]

Mtr,

You wrote: “Another interesting point about that verse is that if it proves anything, it proves too much. As many have commented above, there was no " official New Testament” in existence while Paul was writing to Timothy."

Newman makes this point very effectively.

 

[Kinsman]

Sherlock:

There are serious problems with the ideas you present. First off, you offer: “The early Church assigned “infallibility” to no man or office.”

Really? I have read the Church Fathers extensively, and would be very hesitant indeed to make that claim. On what do you base that hypothesis or theory? I would be most interested to know the basis for your claim.

My statement is easily refuted by simply supplying me with the quotes and list of all the people and things the early Church writers deemed infallible.

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsman,

You never addressed the points I made in earlier posts. You would have more credibility if you addressed difficult questions and didn’t merely ignore them.

You wrote: “Based on the logic presented on this thread, you require an infallible interpreter of the infallible teachings of the infallible “magesterium.” You don’t have that in Karl Keating.”

Karl Keating isn’t defining and teaching doctrine with the authority of the Magisterium. The Magisterium does that. Karl Keating is presenting what the Magisterium has already taught, and his correctness can be determined by comparing what he says with what the Magisterium teaches (the Catechism being a useful expression of the Magisterium’s teaching, for example). Experience has shown me, and others here, that Karl Keating, while not infallible, is certainly reliable, orthodox, and well-studied. The Magisterium provides the ruler by which we can measure Karl and thus conclude this about him. The Magisterium provides that sure norm—a useful tool in making assessments of orthodoxy. You are trying to make the claim that the Bible can serve this purpose (a sure norm), but the facts speak otherwise: Protestants can’t agree on what the Bible says about very important doctrines.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

Karl Keating? Sorry, but based on the argumentative logic you people have been presenting throughout this thread, you can’t trust anything that Karl Keating says. Not with any certainty, that is. You cannot be sure he is interpreting correctly what the “magesterium” has taught either directly or by implication regarding this verse. Unless you’re going to assign to him, as well, the divine attribute of infallibility. Based on the logic presented on this thread, you require an infallible interpreter of the infallible teachings of the infallible “magesterium.” You don’t have that in Karl Keating.

Sure we do. Any Christian who accurately states that which the Church infallibley teaches is speaking free from error…including Karl Keating.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

[Unlike Rome’s “magesterium” I don’t claim “infallible” interpretation of Scripture. When it comes to man and his institutions (religious, or even secular), no one nor anything can honestly claim infallibility. Oh, they may claim it, and you may believe the claim, but the claim and your personal submission to it, don’t create the reality.

You don’t rid the Church of false teachers and false doctrines by simply assigning to an ecclesiastical office the attribute of "infallibility. At best. the most that can be accomplished from that assignment is willful (as well as coerced), outward conformity by those who accept, by faith, the ascribed (divine) attribute. At worst (and this being the overall case) the door is wide open (which no man can shut) to all sorts of false doctrines. For the obvious reason that now no one is allowed to challenge the doctrines espoused by that “infallible” institution. And certainly no devotee would even dare for fear of excommunication, or even loss of salvation with the threat of spending eternity in Hell. This, people, is a cult mentality.

The early Church assigned “infallibility” to no man or office. And the great doctrinal issues were settled not by men graced with this divine attribute, but on the preponderance of evidence revealed in the Scriptures when carefully examined and brought before a Council. But not even the Councils were considered “infallible” in their time, since even after the Council of Nicea, the majority of the Bishops remained Arian in their belief, especially during the years of Emperor Constantius. Even the Roman Pope signed a document which opposed the decision of the Nicene Council in order that he be restored to the Papal chair. And after his defection the whole Roman empire was overspread with Arianism. You see, no man, no ecclesiastical office, no Council is ever infallible.

The idea that God must have, out of necessity, ordained an authoritative means to infallibly interpret His written Word (like Rome’s episcopate), is based only on subjective, human reasoning. A theory which can not be backed up by any sort of objective proof, either from Scripture or Church history. Historically, and realistically, orthodox doctrines were formed out of controversy, and controversy is a product of freedom. Removal of that freedom actually produces the opposite effect. The door is wide open for false doctrines to come into the Church totally unchallenged, and men are required to believe them or suffer the eternal consequences. This is the spirit of darkness behind Rome’s despotism and self-proclaimed infallibility.
Continued…

This lengthy discourse didn’t answer my question. I’ll repost it for you:

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

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

The idea that God must have, out of necessity, ordained an authoritative means to infallibly interpret His written Word (like Rome’s episcopate), is based only on subjective, human reasoning. QUOTE]

Is it your claim that God has revealed everything necessary for salvation in his written word while leaving it impossible to know, with any certainty, that one is understanding it correctly?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

The early Church assigned “infallibility” to no man or office. And the great doctrinal issues were settled not by men graced with this divine attribute, but on the preponderance of evidence revealed in the Scriptures when carefully examined and brought before a Council**…**

This isn’t what we observe at the Council of Jerusalem though. There we find a doctrinal issue being definitively stated by Peter, the holder of the keys…salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11). That teaching cannot be found in the OT anywhere, nor are the scriptures ever even consulted on the issue. We ONLY see James quote scripture in support of Peter’s description of God acquiring a people for His name (Acts 15:14-15), NEVER about whether Peter’s declaration of salvation by grace is correct.

When the decision is made known to the Christian communities via a letter (with the necessary human voice accompanying it to be sure the message isn’t misinterpreted- Acts 15:27), the decision is said to be rendered by “the holy Spirit and of us” NOT by authority of the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures aren’t even mentioned in the letter as playing any role in the decision making let alone as being the sole rule of faith, as is the sola Scripturist’s claim.

Scripture shows clearly that the decision of salvation by grace rendered at the Council of Jerusalem was, indeed, settled by men lead to an infallbile decision under the guidance of the holy Spirit and NOT by the preponderance of evidence revealed in the Scriptures when carefully examined and brought before a Council, as you have claimed.

Please cite the scriptures which support your above statement. Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

“Sola Scriptura” simply means that the ultimate authority for the Church Christ is building, even to this present day, is God’s written Word. Its teachings being infallible based on its Author. Hence, all doctrines and practices taught by men within the Christian Church must be tested against what God has already written.

Since scripture never states this nor do we see it in practice at the first Council which rendered an infallible decision I’m interested on what you base this idea if it must be based on scripture alone?

Why, do you believe, God would leave the scriptures as our only rule of faith without also leaving a means by which we can be certain that we are correctly understanding them?

Your “infamous four questions” don’t challenge “Sola Scriptura,” but are instead a direct attack on the written Word of God itself. An attempt by Rome’s apologists to discredit its divine authority over the Church for the sake of defending its extrabiblical “traditions” and the elevation of itself as our only infallible source. This is called “sola ecclesia.”

They weren’t my questions. However, they aren’t an attack on the word of God at all. The are simply a demonstration that not all infallible decisions can be attested to in scripture.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

all doctrines and practices taught by men within the Christian Church must be tested against what God has already written.

God never instructs us, in his word, to do so.

If scripture cannot be infallibley interpreted how can one be certain that the understanding of scripture against which they are testing all doctrine and practices is, in fact, correct?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

The argument is not based on the word “profitable” (Gr. ophelimos), but “inspired” [Gr. *theopneustos

, God-breathed]. All Scripture is God-breathed. Hence, they wield the Authority of God Himself.

No one is disagreeing about the inspiration or authority of the scriptures, therefore it is not the argument.

We have no higher authority on earth than the God-breathed Scriptures,

Chapter and verse please.

and they accomplish what they’re divinely intended to do: adequately reprove, correct, and train in righteousness the man of God for every good work.

Scripture itself says that the scriptures are USEFUL toward that end, not adequate, as you have stated here. You are misquoting scripture thereby changing its meaning.

And in this respect, just as the water is sufficient (adequate) to keep a man from dying of dehydration (its intended purpose), so the Scriptures are sufficient (adequate) to accomplish what they were divinely intended to do as well.

This example doesn’t work because scripture itself, in this passage, doesn’t claim to be sufficient or adequate, but useful.

I’m interested in why you insist that when the God-inspired scripture writer said that scripture was USEFUL toward that particular end what he really meant was that it’s SUFFICIENT. Please help me understand that.

Thanks!
Nancy

 

[bob]

BobCatholic:

BobRobert’s? ( whomps you playfully with a pillow )

LOC admitted he didn’t know the answers to these infamous 4 questions on DCF message board, but for some reason kinsman won’t admit this. In this way, LOC is superior to kinsman (though both rebel against the Catholic Church)

OOps! Mea Culpa. BobCatholic! There are just too many Bobs here…

I think we should stop debating Kinsman UNTIL he gives us the answers.

He is just going round in circles skirting the issue hoping that that we will forget.

He has not replied to me although I repeated my questions.

He has been conscientiously avoiding ANY difficult questions, especially the 4 killer ones.

He knows that he is wrong, he knows that he has no answers, he just simply hopes they will go away…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

bob:

OOps! Mea Culpa. BobCatholic! There are just too many Bobs here…

I think we should stop debating Kinsman UNTIL he gives us the answers.

He is just going round in circles skirting the issue hoping that that we will forget.

He has not replied to me although I repeated my questions.

He has been conscientiously avoiding ANY difficult questions, especially the 4 killer ones.

He knows that he is wrong, he knows that he has no answers, he just simply hopes they will go away…

I’ve noticed with many Protestants, as with our friend here, that questioning their personal beliefs is perceived as an attack against God’s word itself. Why is that?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

I don’t claim “infallible” interpretation of Scripture… Your “infamous four questions” don’t challenge “Sola Scriptura,” but are instead a direct attack on the written Word of God itself.

Help me understand this. How are questions which aim to clarify your admitedly fallible understanding of scripture a direct attack on the infallible word of God?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[bob]

“Sola Scriptura” simply means that the ultimate authority for the Church Christ is building, even to this present day, is God’s written Word. Its teachings being infallible based on its Author. Hence, all doctrines and practices taught by men within the Christian Church must be tested against what God has already written.

The teachings of the Church has been tested and against scriptures and is based on it.
BUT God sends the Church to ensure that His teachings are properly passed on, including how it is interpreted.

Acts 8:30-35
"Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him…
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus."

Where is God’s Written Word about Jesus at this stage? The interpretation of Scriptures and the teachings about Jesus by Philip was based on Tradition which existed BEFORE the entire NT was even penned.

Kinsman:

Your “infamous four questions” don’t challenge “Sola Scriptura,” but are instead a direct attack on the written Word of God itself. An attempt by Rome’s apologists to discredit its divine authority over the Church for the sake of defending its extrabiblical “traditions” and the elevation of itself as our only infallible source. This is called “sola ecclesia.”

Again I say to you:
The Catholic Church put the Bible together - the Protestants ripped it apart.
WHO is attacking the Word of God?

 

[bob]

Catholic4aReasn:

I’ve noticed with many Protestants, as with our friend here, that questioning their personal beliefs is perceived as an attack against God’s word itself. Why is that?

Because they think they **are ** infallibly interpreting God’s Word and the Church is not?
Because they are God’s messengers?
Because they know more about the Scriptures than 2000 years of church fathers, theologians, etc?

 

[RBushlow]

Kinsman:
Kinsman, let me rephrase the four questions in a hopefully nonoffensive way.

1. How was the number of books (27) in the New Testament decided on?
2. In what way were the books which should belong to the New Testament on?
3. Who selected what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example:
   There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another
   with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

Also I have one more:
5) Where can I find Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

Yours in Christ.

 

[Kinsman]

bob:

The teachings of the Church has been tested and against scriptures and is based on it.
BUT God sends the Church to ensure that His teachings are properly passed on, including how it is interpreted.

Acts 8:30-35
"*Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. *
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

Ah-huh… You say above: “But God’s sends the Church…” Rome defines “the Church” in this context as its episcpate, separating it from the regular Body of Christ. So when you say *“God sends the Church…” *you must restrict that definition to either the “Pope” or Rome’s ruling Bishops (the magesterium). So tell me, when did Philip, who wasn’t even an Apostle, become Pope? And if not Pope, when did he become a Bishop of the Roman church? From what I read of him in the Book of Acts he never went to Rome. And I’ve yet to read in any history books that he settled in that city. In fact, when Philip met the Ethiopian there was not as yet a recognized church assembly in Rome. The Gospel message was just making it to Samaria.

Your example actually militates against your argument and Rome’s boast of exclusive interpretation rights. Philip was neither the Pope of Rome nor was he ever a Bishop of that church. He was a simple, Godly, layman, a Jew, previously chosen to supervise over the waiting on tables whom the Holy Spirit, Himself, sovereignly chose to do mighty things through him (Acts 6 & 8). He was a Spirit filled believer in Jesus Christ and did not need an infallible interpreter to tell him that Isaiah was talking about the Person and work of Jesus Christ. As a Jew he was already familiar with the Messianic passage in Isaiah, and as a believer in his Messiah, He knew the One who fulfilled it. The Holy Spirit can sovereignly choose any true believer, knowledgeable of His prophetic Word, to witness for Christ. Just as He used obedient Philip.

 

[Kinsman]

Catholic4aReasn:

This isn’t what we observe at the Council of Jerusalem though. There we find a doctrinal issue being definitively stated by Peter, the holder of the keys…salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11). That teaching cannot be found in the OT anywhere, nor are the scriptures ever even consulted on the issue. We ONLY see James quote scripture in support of Peter’s description of God acquiring a people for His name (Acts 15:14-15), NEVER about whether Peter’s declaration of salvation by grace is correct.

Sorry, Nancy, but you need to read the Acts 15 passage more carefully. Peter contributed to the issue by relating his personal experience with Cornelius (Acts 10), stating the fact that their "hearts were cleansed BY FAITH (take heed what your Pope says here), but the final decision was given not by Paul or Peter, but James, the brother of the Lord. In verse 19 he states, “*therefore it is my judgment…” *James was not an official Apostle and certainly not a Bishop of Rome. He wasn’t even Pope!! Yet, based on his insight to the Amos 9 prophetic passage, he made the final decision. He based it on his private interpretation of Scripture.

This too, like the previous example with Philip, militates against Rome’s false boast of exclusive interpretation of Scripture. Sorry folks, you just can’t win here. Rome’s claim is valid only for those who want it to be. They have no objective proof. They could fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time - eventually it was time for Reformation and for the Scriptures to be put back into the hands of the people.

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

Ah-huh… You say above: “But God’s sends the Church…” Rome defines “the Church” in this context as its episcpate, separating it from the regular Body of Christ. So when you say *“God sends the Church…” *you must restrict that definition to either the “Pope” or Rome’s ruling Bishops (the magesterium). So tell me, when did Philip, who wasn’t even an Apostle, become Pope? And if not Pope, when did he become a Bishop of the Roman church? From what I read of him in the Book of Acts he never went to Rome. And I’ve yet to read in any history books that he settled in that city. In fact, when Philip met the Ethiopian there was not as yet a recognized church assembly in Rome. The Gospel message was just making it to Samaria.

Your example actually militates against your argument and Rome’s boast of exclusive interpretation rights. Philip was neither the Pope of Rome nor was he ever a Bishop of that church. He was a simple, Godly, layman, a Jew, previously chosen to supervise over the waiting on tables whom the Holy Spirit, Himself, sovereignly chose to do mighty things through him (Acts 6 & 8). He was a Spirit filled believer in Jesus Christ and did not need an infallible interpreter to tell him that Isaiah was talking about the Person and work of Jesus Christ. As a Jew he was already familiar with the Messianic passage in Isaiah, and as a believer in his Messiah, He knew the One who fulfilled it. The Holy Spirit can sovereignly choose any true believer, knowledgeable of His prophetic Word, to witness for Christ. Just as He used obedient Philip.

You have a very annoying habit of:

1. Not replying to difficult questions.
2. Putting words in my mouth.
3. Going off tangent when it suits you.

My original post has TWO points:

1. Where is God’s Written Word about Jesus at this stage? The interpretation of Scriptures and the teachings about Jesus by Philip was based on Tradition which existed BEFORE the entire NT was even penned.
2. Again I say to you:
   The Catholic Church put the Bible together - the Protestants ripped it apart.
   WHO is attacking the Word of God?

Instead of answering the questions, you put words in my mouth.

Where did I say that Philip was a pope?
Where and when did anyone, Catholics as well as Protestants on this thread or elsewhere ever say that only the pope can teach?

As a Sola Scripturist, you should know that the first Church assembly was the Council of Jerusalem, gathered under the leadership of Peter to decide on the issue of circumcision. see Acts 15:1-35,

The teaching of the Word was entrusted to the church under the leadership of Peter - “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…” Acts 15:7.
Peter’s first recorded decision as a leader of the Church.

Who says the Church only started in Rome? It began on Pentecost as every good Christian should know. Tradition and oral teaching began simultaneously **before ** the Word was put on paper.

You put words in my mouth, defined what I did not, and answered me based on your own definition.

Are you claiming that Philip, out of the blue was touched by the Holy Spirit and knew Jesus without having been taught by anyone? Chapter and verse please.

Even Paul had to be taught after he encountered Christ on the road to Damascus!

What Philip learnt about Jesus must have been taught to him by the Apostles who chose him (Acts 6:5-6) and were themselves commissioned by Jesus.

Even after Philip had baptized in Samaria, Peter and John had to go and “finish the job” “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them” Acts 8:16.

Does this not show that Philip was acting under Peter and the Apostles?

Now that I wasted my time replying to what you claim I said, can you please be kind enough to reply to the two questions of my original post repeated above?

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsman,

You wrote: “My statement is easily refuted by simply supplying me with the quotes and list of all the people and things the early Church writers deemed infallible.”

I didn’t see this post until later, and I won’t have time to address it this weekend—hopefully tomorrow (Monday) evening I can get to it. But the nature of your question shows a rather flawed concept of the development of doctrine. Have you ever read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” ? I’ve just started reading it, and can see already why it is considered a classic, even by Protestants. Perhaps it would aid your understanding of doctrine to read this.

You still haven’t addressed the points I have made in previous points, and it is hard not to notice that you’ve skippped around the questions and points posed by others such as Catholic4aReasn and Bob. I can see a pattern developing: instead of answering the questions, you focus on a few trees and hope that no one notices that you’re still denying the existence of the forest. Case in point is this lovely little demonstration: “So tell me, when did Philip, who wasn’t even an Apostle, become Pope? And if not Pope, when did he become a Bishop of the Roman church? From what I read of him in the Book of Acts he never went to Rome. And I’ve yet to read in any history books that he settled in that city. In fact, when Philip met the Ethiopian there was not as yet a recognized church assembly in Rome. The Gospel message was just making it to Samaria.”

Do you really think that stringing together a number of little straw men “arguments” such as you have done here is a substitute for answering difficult questions?