A few questions for Protestants

[Buzzard3]

Any organizing institution can be seen as incorporating and the church in the early 4th century certainly was incorporating and also casting out various sects. Winner take all.

Casting out heretics ... sounds like a good idea to me!

Jesus kept His promise with that church ... That traitorous institution could still be used by God though to forward His truth in the scriptures while man taught another truth of their own modelled on the governments of man.

It seems to me that you've painted yourself into a corner:

If God had to resort to using a" traitorous institution ... to forward His truth in the scriptures", that means there was no true Church in existence at that time. For if the true Church was in existence at that time, God would have used that true Church to "to forward His truth in the scriptures".

So, in effect, you're claiming that at some point in history, the true Church did not exist ... in which case, Jesus did not keep the promise he made in Matt 16 - that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How many times have I explained it already!? That aside, here's a reference source that does a good job of defining the term:

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? (ligonier.org)

I haven’t seen you explain it to me

 

[BNR32FAN]

How many times have I explained it already!? That aside, here's a reference source that does a good job of defining the term:

What Does Sola Scriptura Mean? (ligonier.org)

the definition quoted from your source

“Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth”

The definition I provided

“Sola scriptura being the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word”

So what’s the problem with the definition I provided?

 

[Albion]

There are none. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.

Maybe the question was asking about the many doctrines that were invented after the canonization of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

The definition I provided

“Sola scriptura being the ONLY infallible authority on God’s word”

So what’s the problem with the definition I provided?

As I recall, that wasn't the entirely of your definition.

Did you not qualify it by adding something else, such as that it must be interpreted and doing that makes the concept useless?

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I recall, that wasn't the entirely of your definition.

Did you not qualify it by adding something else, such as that it must be interpreted and doing that makes the concept useless?

no that wasn’t part of the definition that was putting the definition into practice. The word of God is infallible but when we try to put that into practice, interpret the scriptures, that’s what renders the infallibility useless. It doesn’t matter that the scriptures are infallible if our interpretation isn’t because in the end it’s our interpretation that determines our belief. That’s why I said that when sola scriptura is put into practice it becomes useless.

 

[timothyu]

in such a manner that coincides with early church writings

Would that not be who the writings are about, the earliest church?

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

The idea seems to be to defend the Church and not the Kingdom.

 

[Albion]

The word of God is infallible but when we try to put that into practice, interpret the scriptures, that’s what renders the infallibility useless.

which...according to you, makes every standard by which doctrine is determined useless, right? That has to be the case because every alternative to Sola Scriptura is subject to different interpretations in both theory and practice. And that means that there is nothing that's preferable to using the word of God, even though different churches have insisted that "Sacred Tradition" or the "Magisterium" or an infallible Pope or ongoing revelation or something else is preferable.

It doesn’t matter that the scriptures are infallible if our interpretation isn’t because in the end it’s our interpretation that determines our belief. That’s why I said that when sola scriptura is put into practice it becomes useless.

As does everything else in Christianity, according to your theory.

 

[timothyu]

any text that was not 100 percent in compliance with Catholic teaching was rejected.

So the cart took precedent over the horse?

 

[timothyu]

in such a manner that coincides with early church writings

Would that not be who the writings are about, the earliest church?

 

[timothyu]

If someone reads a few sentences from any book, will that give them an idea of the message the book conveys? If a person has a human based concept of what the book may be about, then flips through it to find paragraphs that may back that concept, have they truly found the message the entire book may convey? Will they not have to first get that concept from the entire book (and not some pundit). If a person or group of people wanting to build an authourity over fellow man finds a book that promises to be a good base, then finds the book says not to build authorities or institutions in the image of man's other governances, or not to produce a knock off of the Kingdom, will they then seek to self justify using other means?

 

[Buzzard3]

If they expounded on scripture correctly the Catholic church wouldn't have so many doctrines that are directly opposite of what scripture says.

Yep, the Catholic Church is so dumb and stupid and blind that she invents doctrines that are the direct opposite of what scripture says!!

And to think God chose that moronic Church to decide the canon of the Bible ...
Wait ... where was the true Church when all this was going on?

 

[timothyu]

Casting out heretics ... sounds like a good idea to me!

That is simply saying cast out those who don't agree with we the new majority. Much in the same way that we see going on in the Republican party right now or wit the cancel culture who doesn't want anyone or thing around that offends their sensibilities. The extremes gone to to cast out heretics including torture and death hardly seems to coincide with the ways of the Kingdom and more with the ways of man, but of course saying that would have at one time got me burned at the stake.

If God had to resort to using a" traitorous institution ... to forward His truth in the scriptures", that means there was no true Church in existence at that time. For if the true Church was in existence at that time, God would have used that true Church to "to forward His truth in the scriptures".

You seem to have forgotten how corporations and incorporating works. It is not always the best that moves forward, but rather the most powerful. That has always been the way of man, not the way of the Kingdom which any church is supposed to represent. God knew of the greed of the gentiles. All one has to do is look at the Roman Empire the gentile church was modelled upon.

 

[timothyu]

So, in effect, you're claiming that at some point in history, the true Church did not exist ... in which case, Jesus did not keep the promise he made in Matt 16 - that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church.

No, just the opposite. The true church has always been the people, not any institution of man. Institutions of man all run on the same human principle of power over the masses. God on the other hand said the masses were the true power, and that is why they and not the overlords will inherit the Kingdom.

 

[Buzzard3]

By comparison, Sola Scriptura is not that way, for that concept simply says that there is nothing more authoritative than the word of God.

... which is a useless concept if no one can provide an infallible interpretation of the word of God. It's like having a Ferrari sitting in the driveway but no one has the key to start it.

 

[timothyu]

Yep, the Catholic Church is so dumb and stupid and blind that she invents doctrines that are the direct opposite of what scripture says!!

Well one does have to question why it abandoned the Kingdom to re-join the governments of man in seeking power and glory. But don't get me wrong, there was purpose in that in serving God's plan. What better way to forward his truth in scripture than in the hands of the enemy so intent on themselves they because of their pride, thought they could keep the words of truth away from the masses about Kingdom vs the governments and ways of man.

And to think God chose that moronic Church to decide the canon of the Bible ...
Wait ... where was the true Church when all this was going on?

Making official what was already accepted. Meanwhile the true church had existed outside the restrictions of any human government including this new one. It was simply a way of life where although man's governments and institutions insist you breath in the ways they say, they chose to breath the way God intended.

 

[Buzzard3]

In the future, may I suggest, and if you want Catholics to put any credence in your postings regarding our Catholic faith, you may want to get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and actually see what the Catholic Church teaches and does not teach before posting.

Christians would learn much more about salvation and following Christ by reading the CCC than they would by reading the Bible.

 

[timothyu]

... which is a useless concept if no one can provide an infallible interpretation of the word of God. It's like having a Ferrari sitting in the driveway but no one has the key to start it.

Here's the key. Have fun.

Luke 4: 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Luke 16: 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Matthew 24: 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Just another example of why institutions fear scripture.

 

[Buzzard3]

Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

Yes indeed ... that's why there are tens of thousands of Protestant sects and denominations, each teaching their own version of their infallible interpretation of Scripture!

 

[BNR32FAN]

Would that not be who the writings are about, the earliest church?

The idea seems to be to defend the Church and not the Kingdom.

I don’t understand the question here, the early church writings consists of the writings of the apostle’s disciples. At least that’s the ones I’m referring to in that post. The scriptures aren’t the only piece of evidence we have of what the apostles actually taught. Their students and followers wrote about the apostles and the scriptures as well. These writings give us an idea of what they were taught by the apostles and give us clues on how the scriptures should be interpreted.