The issues with Sola Scriptura

[mikpat]

Regarding the "Pope's super-sized ego,' and claims to be infallible", an anti Catholic slur, quite common on this CF.
The infallibility, is a supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ, is by special Divine assistance, preserved from liability in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding faith and morals.

Would King James and his claims that his Bible is the inspired word of God be a wee bit chutzpah"? Henry V111, lots of ego there, Martin Luther's "The Bible Alone" is all that is necessary to understand God's Holy Word sounds infallible. And then we have Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Zwingli and their teachings.
I'm sure they all believed what they taught was infallible, the truth…

 

[mikpat]

Sola Scriptura—-teaches that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, the final authority in matters of faith and practice. I think when we can discuss with others what is Sola Scriptura, we can get a better meaning of the teaching either for it or against it. Some people stay strictly within the readings, others may have bible classes others may turn to pastors and teachers. Many Lutherans do not accept everything in the Bible is literal, could be scientific errors and historical errors.

Oddly enough the Bible says nothing directly supporting this Protestant teaching,, "Sola Scritura".

2 Timothy 3:16-17. "
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work"

 

[lesliedellow]

Regarding −post 255, 2Peter 1:20.

Most Definitely is a warning about false prophets, false teachers, false translations (thousands of bibles with different publishers). "…Many will follow their licentious ways……they will exploit you (the reader)……"

Thousands of bibles and thousands pf protestant denominations all claiming that what they read is inspired,

Oh yes, and what about the multifarious translations used by Catholics?

Douai Rheims, Jerusalem Bible, New Catholic Bible, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version, New Community Bible.....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sola Scriptura—-teaches that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, the final authority in matters of faith and practice. I think when we can discuss with others what is Sola Scriptura, we can get a better meaning of the teaching either for it or against it. Some people stay strictly within the readings, others may have bible classes others may turn to pastors and teachers. Many Lutherans do not accept everything in the Bible is literal, could be scientific errors and historical errors.

Oddly enough the Bible says nothing directly supporting this Protestant teaching,, "Sola Scritura".

2 Timothy 3:16-17. "
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work"

What to do you make of 1 Corin 4:6

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/1-corin-4-6-no-above-what-is-written.7367166/

quote LLOJ:
I was studying on this verse along with the Greek texts and though there is a variance in one of the greek texts [W-H], I was wondering how others view this verse.
The way this is worded, it appears to say do not go beyond "what is written".

Is Paul talking about His letters, or the Gospels and Old Testament or the whole Bible. Thoughts?

1 Corinthians 4:6
These-things yet brethren! I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye.
That in us ye may be learning the no above/over that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), *to think* that no one over the one ye may be being puffed up against the other/different.

Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 4:6 tauta de adelfoi meteschmatisa eiV emauton kai *apollw di umaV
ina en hmin maqhte to mh uper *o gegraptai *fronein* ina mh eiV uper tou enoV fusiousqe kata tou eterou

What I find extremely interesting is the last 2 places in the NT/NC this FORM of the word #1125 is used and that is concerning those written in the Book of the Life of the Lambkin.

This is where a good greek/hebrew interlinear comes in handy I think.........Thoughts?

Scripture4all - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Reve 13:8
and shall be worshipping *to him all the ones dwelling upon the land of whom not has been written/gegraptai <1125> (5769) the *name *of him in the scroll of the life of the lambkin, *of the one having been slaughtered from down-casting of world.

Reve 17:8
The beast which thou saw was and not is and is being about to be ascending out of the abyss and into destruction is going away and shall be marveling the ones dwelling upon the land of whom not has been written/gegraptai <1125> (5769) the names upon the scroll of the life from down-casting of world beholding the beast that was and not is and shall-be/*yet is

gegraptai <1125> (5769) Used 67 times. 2 Times in Revelation {13:8, 17:8}


.

 

[JohnRabbit]

That's not what Peter meant there. Peter meant that the writer of scripture was not writing his own personal interpretations but was writing what God inspired him to write.

Peter's words don't, therefore, particularly guide us on how we today interpret those words, other than to assure us we are, indeed, reading God's word.

interesting!

like the prophecy in dan 2, in which no one could interpret the dream of nebuchadneezar! God gives a prophecy through the king and no one could interpret, per verse 10.

but it is God Who reveals secrets of the scrtiptures, per verse 18!

this emboldens my point.

the interpretation came from God, like all of the "hard" things in the bible to decipher!

it's just like the symbols from revelation 6 that i mentioned earlier!

the interpretation comes from the bible itself!

 

[mikpat]

Regarding LeslieD——post #263

I'm not that familiar with some of those Bibles, I have the New American Bible NAB, and the Ignatius Holy Bible.
Both Bibles have been approved by the Catholic Church——Have the "Nihil Obstat" and the "Imprimatur" the two signs of the Church's approval, usually found on the beginning pages with all the copyrights, ISBN's etc.

If the Bible has these approvals then there are no uhhhh "multifarious translations" as you so delicately put it, there are no differences in interpretations/translations.

I think that is very studious of you to read all of the above bibles and be able to pick out all those, uhhhh, "multifarious translations."

Frankly, I don't give a hoot what Bible people read, I just object to snide anti Catholic remarks about Catholicism in any form.

 

[mikpat]

What happens when two or three, disagree on another person's interpretation of the Bible? The Bible itself does not provide resolution. Yes, one can stay with his or her interpretation and never change or or one may check out the footnotes, some have a concordium with explanations, some have a study group,pastors, some have courses etc. and each person comes up with some interpretation from their authority. After that who knows———
Then comes the bible jousting,,,,or dueling bibles as I refer to the process.

1 Timothy refers to the "Church" what is the Church ——-which brings up the term "rock" in Mat 16, 13 −19.
People who choose to avoid "Peter" —- say it means sand, another stone, another rock is Jesus, and several other notions———interesting though.

 

[Rick Otto]

Regarding the "Pope's super-sized ego,' and claims to be infallible", an anti Catholic slur, quite common on this CF.
The infallibility, is a supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ, is by special Divine assistance, preserved from liability in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding faith and morals.

Would King James and his claims that his Bible is the inspired word of God be a wee bit chutzpah"? Henry V111, lots of ego there, Martin Luther's "The Bible Alone" is all that is necessary to understand God's Holy Word sounds infallible. And then we have Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Zwingli and their teachings.
I'm sure they all believed what they taught was infallible, the truth…

Calm down. They are all picayune in comparison to the wildly supremacist claim found in the last line of Unam Sanctum.
Bone up, bro.

 

[Rick Otto]

Regarding LeslieD——post #263

I'm not that familiar with some of those Bibles, I have the New American Bible NAB, and the Ignatius Holy Bible.
Both Bibles have been approved by the Catholic Church——Have the "Nihil Obstat" and the "Imprimatur" the two signs of the Church's approval, usually found on the beginning pages with all the copyrights, ISBN's etc.

If the Bible has these approvals then there are no uhhhh "multifarious translations" as you so delicately put it, there are no differences in interpretations/translations.

I think that is very studious of you to read all of the above bibles and be able to pick out all those, uhhhh, "multifarious translations."

Frankly, I don't give a hoot what Bible people read, I just object to snide anti Catholic remarks about Catholicism in any form.

Your naivete' is horribly obvious.

 

[JohnRabbit]

What happens when two or three, disagree on another person's interpretation of the Bible?

that's why the bible admonishes us not to do so. the doctrines are all there for those who want to honestly search the scriptures.

The Bible itself does not provide resolution.

i think paul disagrees with you!

2 Timothy 3:16-17(NKJV)
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Yes, one can stay with his or her interpretation and never change or or one may check out the footnotes, some have a concordium with explanations, some have a study group,pastors, some have courses etc. and each person comes up with some interpretation from their authority. After that who knows———
Then comes the bible jousting,,,,or dueling bibles as I refer to the process.

this, what you have written here, cannot be what God had in mind for His scripture. it would simply make God look irresponsible for allowing such to happen, besides, it would contradict 1cor 14:33!

so, if there's confusion around scripture, i wonder who would be responsible for that? mmm, i let me see...

1 Timothy refers to the "Church" what is the Church ——-which brings up the term "rock" in Mat 16, 13 −19.
People who choose to avoid "Peter" —- say it means sand, another stone, another rock is Jesus, and several other notions———interesting though.

would take too long to comment on this.

 

[Graham Dull]

The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely consistent in its interpretation -- The church is ‘holy,’ and the Roman Pontiff ‘reigns supreme.’

Unam Sanctam

“the Church is one, holy”

“it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII -- November 18, 1302

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

Yet in The Revelation of Jesus Christ (The Apocalypse), Jesus reproves the church many times over, with statements like this.

Revelation 2:4

“Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken…”

Jesus Christ -- First Century

We are all held individually responsible for how we handle the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles. We are responsible before God to whom we must give an account.

It does not matter whether we are an individual within 'the church' or outside 'the church,' all are capable of misrepresenting the message of Jesus Christ as testified to by the Apostles.

Our responsibility is to God. He will judge. The church is not its own final authority.

2 Timothy 2:15

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, one who needn’t be ashamed, one who correctly handles the word of truth.”

 

[BukiRob]

First of all churches that were established by the disciples shortly after Jesus left them after His ascension into heaven were not Catholic churches. Paul in his missionary journeys throughout known Europe at the time established many congregations of churches which were lead by Elders and Deacons as instructed in Scripture. Paul also returned to visit the churches he established and many of his letters in the New Testament were written to these congregations concerning various topics of concern and instruction. Nowhere in his letters does Paul mention a Pope or any kind of Catholic tradition or authority other than the local church Elders with Christ as its head. Catholicism was established by Constantine many years later which in many ways hardly resembles the first churches established by Paul.

Uhmmmm the vast majority of churches established during the apostolic age were in Asia Minor. Macedonia was the furthest East he traveled until his arrest at the end of his ministry in Rome.

Additionally, there is nearly 0 evidence that Peter was ever in Rome let alone established the church and was its first pope. Biblically it is rather clear that it was PAUL who taught and wrote to the followers in Rome.

What happens when two or three, disagree on another person's interpretation of the Bible? The Bible itself does not provide resolution. Yes, one can stay with his or her interpretation and never change or or one may check out the footnotes, some have a concordium with explanations, some have a study group,pastors, some have courses etc. and each person comes up with some interpretation from their authority. After that who knows———
Then comes the bible jousting,,,,or dueling bibles as I refer to the process.

1 Timothy refers to the "Church" what is the Church ——-which brings up the term "rock" in Mat 16, 13 −19.
People who choose to avoid "Peter" —- say it means sand, another stone, another rock is Jesus, and several other notions———interesting though.

And this is why using a lexicon and a concordance are so important when you read.

 

[DJKWord]

What happens when two or three, disagree on another person's interpretation of the Bible? The Bible itself does not provide resolution. Yes, one can stay with his or her interpretation and never change or or one may check out the footnotes, some have a concordium with explanations, some have a study group,pastors, some have courses etc. and each person comes up with some interpretation from their authority. After that who knows———
Then comes the bible jousting,,,,or dueling bibles as I refer to the process.

Which Bible passages are these?

Anyway, two examples come to mind. Someone once quoted me Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry, and do not sin." This was to prove it's Godly to be angry. (She was angry a lot.) But if you simply keep reading, you can see it means not to let your anger make you do anything stupid. And the second part of the same verse tells us not to stay angry. And the last two verses of that chapter say to put away wrath, anger, clamor etc.

I reminded her of this. She was silent for a moment, then said: "Well--be angry, and do not sin!"

Another time I came out of a crusade to find a guy in the parking lot. He was holding this sign saying "Jesus caused 9/11" or something outrageous like that. Again and again he fired off Psalm 7:11: "God is a just judge, and is angry with the wicked every day." God hates sinners, he said, and that's all there is to it. Yet he must have known the story of the Prodigal Son, as well as Christ's parable of the 1 lost sheep out of the 99, and Paul assuring Timothy that God wishes for all to come to repentance. As well as God telling Ezekiel he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

I've run into more folks like these--and increasingly I think of the Bereans, who in Acts 17 searched the writings for themselves, checking out Paul's claims. And they were commended for it. There seemed no need for someone to make sure they interpreted it correctly, nor admonition that they didn't have the authority.

In my experience, as I've noted on this thread, the trouble seems to start when people get certain ideas--like God hates sinners and it's Biblical to be angry--and they latch onto 1 or 2 verses that seem to support this, quoting them over and over. (I've learned to watch out for anyone who quotes the same verses over and over.) But you can easily see from the context, as well as in light of the rest of the Book, whether they're correct or not.

Hope this helps.

 

[TalwinStark]

Who told you that God endorses the bible?

Who told you which books belong in the New Testament?

So then are you saying that in fact God does not endorse His Word?

Would not the structure of the Bible and how its put together be lead by God's Holy Spirit, so in fact by God Himself?

The Bible is God's gift to us to help us and guide us in our walk on this Earth. The Catholic Church, or any church for that matter does not choose what is in God's book. To say that's the case is denying the Holy Spirit. Which is dangerous enough. Man does nothing that isn't guided by one of two things. God or Satan. Depends on how you are listening to. If you onl listen to mans words about God's word you will be lost.

 

[Wolf_Says]

So then are you saying that in fact God does not endorse His Word?

Would not the structure of the Bible and how its put together be lead by God's Holy Spirit, so in fact by God Himself?

The Bible is God's gift to us to help us and guide us in our walk on this Earth. The Catholic Church, or any church for that matter does not choose what is in God's book. To say that's the case is denying the Holy Spirit. Which is dangerous enough. Man does nothing that isn't guided by one of two things. God or Satan. Depends on how you are listening to. If you onl listen to mans words about God's word you will be lost.

No, what he is saying is who told you? Did God whisper in your ear that this is His book?

What he is getting at is, that without the Catholic Church, the Bible as we know it today would not have existed, because it did not exist before the Church. In fact there was no biblical cannot of NT scripture until late in the 4th century. It was the Catholic Church that declared these books to be divinely inspired and therefore Holy Scripture.

And since authority works from up downwards, Scripture had to get its authority from somewhere, and that is from the Church, who received its authority from God. Therefore, SS does not hold water, is circular logic, and is in fact un-bilical.

 

[TalwinStark]

No, what he is saying is who told you? Did God whisper in your ear that this is His book?

What he is getting at is, that without the Catholic Church, the Bible as we know it today would not have existed, because it did not exist before the Church. In fact there was no biblical cannot of NT scripture until late in the 4th century. It was the Catholic Church that declared these books to be divinely inspired and therefore Holy Scripture.

And since authority works from up downwards, Scripture had to get its authority from somewhere, and that is from the Church, who received its authority from God. Therefore, SS does not hold water, is circular logic, and is in fact un-bilical.

I see your point, however how does then the Church ( I am assuming you are referring to the RCC) get its authority if not from Scripture?

How can the word of man be higher then God's Word and therefore validate the Bible?

Does not the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests and such get there wisdom from God's Word and not the popes?

I enjoy the the discussion.

 

[Wolf_Says]

I see your point, however how does then the Church ( I am assuming you are referring to the RCC) get its authority if not from Scripture?

How can the word of man be higher then God's Word and therefore validate the Bible?

Does not the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests and such get there wisdom from God's Word and not the popes?

I enjoy the the discussion.

I enjoy it too, though it can get heated.

The Catholic Church gets the authority from God. Remember, Jesus did not write a book, He established a Church. That Church is the same one that gave the world the Bible. So even though the Bible is indeed the written word of God, somebody has to have the authority to interpret it. Where there is no authority to interpret the Bible, we get the mess that we have today where there are 40,000 different denominations.

Nobody is saying that Scripture has no authority, but it is not the SOLE or HIGHEST authority as SS claims it to be. Everybody gets wisdom from the Bible! I dont think that is up for debate.

Please understand, I am not saying that the we completely reject scripture either. In terms of authority, not a single authority besides God can stand on its own.

The Bible points to the Church and Tradition, and they point to the Bible. It is a 3 legged stool of authority that keeps the Church from collapsing. Remove even 1 of the legs, the stool can no longer stand up and falls over.

 

[TalwinStark]

I enjoy it too, though it can get heated.

The Catholic Church gets the authority from God. Remember, Jesus did not write a book, He established a Church. That Church is the same one that gave the world the Bible. So even though the Bible is indeed the written word of God, somebody has to have the authority to interpret it. Where there is no authority to interpret the Bible, we get the mess that we have today where there are 40,000 different denominations.

Nobody is saying that Scripture has no authority, but it is not the SOLE or HIGHEST authority as SS claims it to be. Everybody gets wisdom from the Bible! I dont think that is up for debate.

Please understand, I am not saying that the we completely reject scripture either. In terms of authority, not a single authority besides God can stand on its own.

The Bible points to the Church and Tradition, and they point to the Bible. It is a 3 legged stool of authority that keeps the Church from collapsing. Remove even 1 of the legs, the stool can no longer stand up and falls over.

HAHA! That it can! Which is why I never take anything to seriously I just enjoy learning more.

I'm intrigued so I will bite, So you think man alone has authority to interpret scripture?

Would not wisdom and the ability to interpret come from the Holy Spirit?

 

[Wolf_Says]

HAHA! That it can! Which is why I never take anything to seriously I just enjoy learning more.

I'm intrigued so I will bite, So you think man alone has authority to interpret scripture?

Would not wisdom and the ability to interpret come from the Holy Spirit?

First, love your avatar! The other one was really cool too though, I love medieval themes.

No, man alone does not have that authority. The Church has that authority. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the only thing that has the authority to interpret scripture.

It does come from the Holy Spirit, the issue is everybody claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible, and yet there is still 40,000 different denominations all claiming to know the truth and being led by the Holy Spirit, and they differ greatly in their teachings and understandings.

That really does not sound like the Holy Spirit to me.

The only reason the Church has that authority is because the Church was started by Jesus, and Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit. It was this Church that put the Bible together and declared it as Holy Scripture.

 

[TalwinStark]

First, love your avatar! The other one was really cool too though, I love medieval themes.

No, man alone does not have that authority. The Church has that authority. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the only thing that has the authority to interpret scripture.

It does come from the Holy Spirit, the issue is everybody claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible, and yet there is still 40,000 different denominations all claiming to know the truth and being led by the Holy Spirit, and they differ greatly in their teachings and understandings.

That really does not sound like the Holy Spirit to me.

The only reason the Church has that authority is because the Church was started by Jesus, and Jesus promised that the Church would be led by the Holy Spirit. It was this Church that put the Bible together and declared it as Holy Scripture.

Hey thanks man! I am a huge Medieval historian and love it.

Heres my question to you then, Do you believe that the Catholic Church, and it's leadership, is still being led by the Holy Spirit and is operating the way Christ would want it to and how He established it?

Again no judgement I just enjoy ideas and discussions.