Sola Scriptura & Authority of Men

[Albion]

And therein lies the problem with sola scriptura.

...and any alternate system that involves comprehension by humans. So that includes your church's system, too.

 

[Albion]

You asked me what my solution would be to the interpretation issue. That is why I proposed my faith. Though I am here to debate, I think this is the only designated forum for such.

Well, OK. You say not to make the Bible the arbiter of doctrine but go by what your church tells you instead.

How is that any different from taking one interpretation of Scripture and telling yourself you'll just go with it? The only difference is that you DEEM the Pope to be infallible--even though you know that he is thought by his own church to be infallible ONLY under rare circumstances that have not occurred in your lifetime. I could just as easily deem the world's greatest Bible scholar's interpretation of Scripture to be infallible...if that's what cinches it for you.

You see, the process is essentially the same.

All you are proposing is deferring judgment about Scripture to a third party and then calling that party infallible, knowing that he is not.

But you had to decide which other person to defer to! Other people made a different decision there. The problem you think exists with Sola Scriptura has merely been removed one additional level from the source...with no increase in certainty. You don't have to decide what Scripture is saying, but you do have to decide whose interpretation of it you will take!

Alright, lets just go through some of the bible versus I proposed and leave it at that (unless you have more to say). Jesus says who hears you hears me, and teach all nations, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and the Advocate will teach you all things. What is your interpretation on these versus?

I think it means what it says there. Who hears Jesus, teach all, bound in heaven, Holy Ghost will guide the church. Do you think it means something other than that?

Also, please elaborate on the authorities you agreed were given to Peter.

Peter was given a role to play; that was to open the world to the Gospel. That is what "keys" do--open. And of course we know that he did just that on Pentecost Sunday when he gave a miraculous speech that resulted in the mass conversions of the first followers who had not been with Jesus on his travels.

 

[shturt678s]

And therein lies the problem with sola scriptura.

This doesn't mean of course that Scripture doesn't supply its own interpretation if God leads one to it.

Appreciate you and your words,

Old Jack

 

[saintboniface]

Well, OK. You say not to make the Bible the arbiter of doctrine but go by what your church tells you instead.

How is that any different from taking one interpretation of Scripture and telling yourself you'll just go with it? The only difference is that you DEEM the Pope to be infallible--even though you know that he is thought by his own church to be infallible ONLY under rare circumstances that have not occurred in your lifetime. I could just as easily deem the world's greatest Bible scholar's interpretation of Scripture to be infallible...if that's what cinches it for you.

You see, the process is essentially the same.

All you are proposing is deferring judgment about Scripture to a third party and then calling that party infallible, knowing that he is not.

But you had to decide which other person to defer to! Other people made a different decision there. The problem you think exists with Sola Scriptura has merely been removed one additional level from the source...with no increase in certainty. You don't have to decide what Scripture is saying, but you do have to decide whose interpretation of it you will take!


I think it means what it says there. Who hears Jesus, teach all, bound in heaven, Holy Ghost will guide the church. Do you think it means something other than that?


Peter was given a role to play; that was to open the world to the Gospel. That is what "keys" do--open. And of course we know that he did just that on Pentecost Sunday when he gave a miraculous speech that resulted in the mass conversions of the first followers who had not been with Jesus on his travels.

I see what you are saying. I just don't think you are giving enough credit to the handing on of the faith from one generation to the next, to the bible passages mentioned above, to the lack of bible writings for decades and lack of a bible for centuries, to the fact that the Church claims what it does, and the historical reality that Christianity existed only as Catholicism for numerous centuries.

 

[Albion]

I see what you are saying. I just don't think you are giving enough credit to the handing on of the faith from one generation to the next, to the bible passages mentioned above, to the lack of bible writings for decades and lack of a bible for centuries, to the fact that the Church claims what it does, and the historical reality that Christianity existed only as Catholicism for numerous centuries.

Some of that is important, yes, but we were dealing with something far more fundamental--what is the source of truth. The longevity of any institution or the quality of its leaders, etc. may establish a certain reputation, but it cannot replace the source of all truth for us men, which is God's revelation. And of course, you should be able to admit that the Eastern Orthodox churches are older than yours and they have quite a different answer on many issues, not the least of which is Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. So, it's not as clear cut as you are wanting to believe it to be.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion,you wrote in post#45 " So, it's not as clear cut as you are wanting to believe it to be. "

So, you're saying that Protestantism, with it's 30,000+ conflicting, confused, denominations along with it's KJV off-spring cults, is more "clear cut ' than Christ's Apostolic Church. My Biblical proof [ Matt. 28;18-20,Luke 10:16, John 20:21 ] to witness that Jesus only formed " One " Church, with "all" its members being found only in any Church that can trace it's lineage directly back to Jesus and His chosen Apostles. Only the Roman Catholic Church along with the Eastern Orthodox Church can claim this, one from the apostle St.Peter and one from apostle St.Andrew. All other churches can only trace their lineage back to a mere-man.You claim bo be adherent to only the "Bible Alone" so with your Holy Bible point out where Jesus said that He gives His Authority to any man or woman the authority to invent future churches different from His Universal, Apostolic Church, Book, Chapter, Verse.