Sola Scriptura & Authority of Men

[saintboniface]

Absolutely.

And if you are thinking that some "interpreter" will solve all the problems, think again. No matter who that interpreter is, we will still be faced with deciding if he is indeed the real one, if his interpretations are right, and/or what they mean. The interpretations do not settle anything; they merely require a debate on the interpretations just as much as there is a debate over the material that's being interpreted.

There was no "interpreter" for the Old Testament--that's 2/3 of the Bible, you know--and yet we know from the New Testament that Jesus and the Apostles read and frequently referred to passages from the Jewish Bible...all without any "interpretation."

And, BTW, if I were to agree with you about this, it's not what separates the Catholic churches from the Protestant churches anyway. The Catholic Churches do not base their doctrines on Scripture AS INTERPRETED BY anyone in particular. They based them upon Tradition and blast the idea (as we read here all the time) of going by Scripture, period.

It is a historical fact that Jesus sent his disciples out to teach all nations and feed his sheep; that the disciples assigned other men to carry on as the leaders; that these leaders continued to assign other leaders unto the present day; that at some time during this process the leaders selected certain writings and declared them to be inspired.

Jesus acknowledged that the Jewish leaders had authority to teach. Jesus instructed his disciples to do as the Jewish leaders say, not as they do.

Do you believe in a static truth? Or do you think truth is relative? Does truth only depend on what one believes is the truth and nothing else?

What do you think about each and every Christian unanimously condemning contraceptives for 1900 years and then all of a sudden some "Christians" drop their opposition?

 

[Albion]

It is a historical fact that Jesus sent his disciples out to teach all nations and feed his sheep; that the disciples assigned other men to carry on as the leaders; that these leaders continued to assign other leaders unto the present day; that at some time during this process the leaders selected certain writings and declared them to be inspired.

I might reword a little of that, but OK. This isn't the issue.

My point and belief is that we have the word of God (the Bible). Just about every Christian Church considers it to be divine revelation, and that includes yours as well as mine.

Why, then, would it make sense to trump that with something ELSE or IN ADDITION TO the best we can possibly have?

And if you want to say that there might be OTHER revelation of the same value, where's the evidence that God's revelation in Scripture is to be considered incomplete? That's only a human conjecture...and a very shaky claim to say that God didn't accomplish his purpose correctly or adequately.

What's more, even the opinions and customs from which the church has selectively chosen these extra doctrines don't support the claims made for a supplement to the Bible! The Church Fathers cited Scripture as the basis for their teachings, not "traditions."

 

[shturt678s]

O.T. Jews after say 530ish B.C. Been about 3 decades but do remember, ie, when all said and done, , ie, my point: the historical context had the last say - The old rabbis used the interpretive approach called midrashic broken down to qal vahomer and gezerah shavah with my old notes. Today just have to Google it up, ie, I guess the ol' "midrashic"?

Old Jack

 

[saintboniface]

Why, then, would it make sense to trump that with something ELSE or IN ADDITION TO the best we can possibly have?

Non-Catholics don't have the best they possibly can have. By elevating themselves above those that Christ appointed they endanger their souls even if they have good intentions. Non-Catholics must make moral decisions that they have no guidance for. The bible does not come close to covering all moral decisions. It is not an instruction book though there are certainly some instructions within it.

I guess that is why sola scripture goes hand-in-hand with sola fide. For those types, it does't matter if something is good or evil. There are no moral decisions. Just believe!!

What does this passage from Matthew 16 mean?

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Remember to address the part that says "shall be bound in heaven." No dancing. And don't give me a Catholic answer like "I am not bound by every passage of scripture."

 

[Albion]

Non-Catholics don't have the best they possibly can have.

You think God's word isn't good enough, then? I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, and this is what I get from your comment. If the Bible isn't adequate, then it's deficient, no? Is that your view?

Non-Catholics must make moral decisions that they have no guidance for.

I don't know why you'd say that, considering that the Bible is full of moral guidance.

I guess that is why sola scripture goes hand-in-hand with sola fide. For those types, it does't matter if something is good or evil. There are no moral decisions. Just believe!!
Gosh. It sounds as if you're describing your own faith. Didn't you just tell me "elevating themselves above those that Christ appointed they endanger their souls even if they have good intentions. Non-Catholics must make moral decisions that they have no guidance"--from the church leadership, that is?

Our guidance system, by contrast, is firm and unchanging--the word of God.

 

[Albion]

Non-Catholics don't have the best they possibly can have.

You think God's word isn't good enough, then?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, and this is what I get from your comment. If the Bible isn't adequate, then it's deficient, no? Is that your view?

I guess that is why sola scripture goes hand-in-hand with sola fide. For those types, it does't matter if something is good or evil. There are no moral decisions. Just believe!!

Wow. It sounds as if you're describing your own faith.

Didn't you just tell me that "elevating themselves above those that Christ appointed they endanger their souls even if they have good intentions. Non-Catholics must make moral decisions that they have no guidance"--from the church leadership, that is?

Our guidance system, by contrast, is firm and unchanging. It's the word of God.

 

[saintboniface]

You think God's word isn't good enough, then?

I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, and this is what I get from your comment. If the Bible isn't adequate, then it's deficient, no? Is that your view?

Didn't you just tell me that "elevating themselves above those that Christ appointed they endanger their souls even if they have good intentions. Non-Catholics must make moral decisions that they have no guidance"--from the church leadership, that is?

The bible is deficient because it does not address all moral situations. I just gave you a passage from the bible that says Jesus did establish a Church and he obviously did give some type of authority to Peter. I am asking you what that passage means.

Do you think the bible addresses every moral situation?

 

[Albion]

The bible is deficient

Oooh. I didn't think we'd be that far apart, even knowing that Catholicism thinks that human opinion can be as authoritative as God's word. But since you say what you do, I don't see much of a basis for continued debate on this matter. We simply have two opposing views about religious authority.

I just gave you a passage from the bible that says Jesus did establish a Church and he obviously did give some type of authority to Peter. I am asking you what that passage means.

I understand it to mean that he established a Church, and that he did give some type of authority to Peter.

There's nothing there about any Pope, Apostolic Succession, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallbility, universal jurisdiction, etc.--and all of that was just laid at the feet of this verse by later bishops of Rome and their devotees as they attempted to achieve domination over the other Patriarchates. That's simple history.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, please explain Luke 10:16 in your words. Also the following verses and passages -Heb 4:14-- 5:1-4, 2nd Cor.5:20.

Did the Apostles consecrate Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias, yes or no. srr Acts13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26 and Titus 1:5.

 

[saintboniface]

Our guidance system, by contrast, is firm and unchanging. It's the word of God.

When you say "our," are you referring to the Anglican church? That community will bend over backwards to accommodate the current trends and the lusts of men.

How so you ask? How about the Lambeth conference which stated "We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious." Now I am sure the every Anglican church has a prophylactic dispenser in the bathroom.

Or how about this from the C of E website:
"The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be - strictly limited - conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative."
Talk about an abomination!!! A Christian community, supposedly based on scripture, condones the killing of innocent human beings!!! Notice that they are not even making the argument that it is not a human being (because why would they have strong opposition to it in the first place). They are simply saying that sometimes it is OK to kill your offspring. That is sick!!


Maybe you belong to an Anglican community that has different teachings. Still the same, I guess that is the problem with sola scriptura. Truth becomes whatever interpretation one can come up with. Yes, I do look to Rome for proper interpretation. Just look at the moral teachings of the Catholic Church compared with other so called Christian faiths. That should be proof enough that the Catholic Church is the church of Christ.

 

[Albion]

When you say "our," are you referring to the Anglican church?

I was referring to reformed Christians in general.

That community will bend over backwards to accommodate the current trends and the lusts of men.

What "community? "

It is wrong to generalize like that, especially when delivering that kind of condemnation.

Maybe you belong to an Anglican community that has different teachings.

That's right. I am an orthodox Anglican, so none of your ramblings here has any application to my own religious life.

But I also don't think you are standing on very solid ground if you are going to launch an attack any other church with reference to the accomodation of "lusts" and "abominations."

 

[saintboniface]

I was referring to reformed Christians in general.

What "community? "

It is wrong to generalize like that, especially when delivering that kind of condemnation.

That's right. I am an orthodox Anglican, so none of your ramblings here has any application to my own religious life.

But I also don't think you are standing on very solid ground if you are going to launch an attack any other church with reference to the accomodation of "lusts" and "abominations."

I'm glad to hear that.

Don't your bishops claim apostolic succession which you earlier stated was not in the bible? I am confused. Don't you have particular services and avoid cotton candy worship? Don't your leaders wear certain vestments? Where is this in the bible? These are things that sola scriptura adherents ask of Catholics. Or maybe you are answering this question on behalf of others, not based on your own faith.

Anyone that calls abortion a good and calls themselves a Christian is worse than a murderer.

 

[Albion]

I'm glad to hear that.

Don't your bishops claim apostolic succession which you earlier stated was not in the bible?

Of course. Our bishops are in Apostolic Succession, but it is a policy that developed during the late first century. There are certain hints in the NT about the Apostles commissioning successors, etc. but the system became standard in the church essentially for practical reasons of good order. That's been discussed on these forums before.

I am confused.

Making assumptions and treating them as facts will do that.

Don't you have particular services and avoid cotton candy worship?

What are you talking about?

Don't your leaders wear certain vestments? Where is this in the bible? These are things that sola scriptura adherents ask of Catholics.

None of that vestments stuff, etc. has anything to do with Sola Scriptura, so maybe if you reworded your question? What, exactly, is it that you find disturbing about considering God's word to be our guide to doctrine?

Vestments are not doctrine, and what you mean by "particular services" I don't want to guess at. So it appears that you are under the mistaken impression that Sola Scriptura means believing or doing nothing unless Scripture directs it. If so, we need to start back at the beginning, without any presumptions on your part, until it's clear (whether or not you agree with Sola Scriptura in the end).

 

[saintboniface]

What, exactly, is it that you find disturbing about considering God's word to be our guide to doctrine?

So it appears that you are under the mistaken impression that Sola Scriptura means believing or doing nothing unless Scripture directs it.

Yes, I am under the impression, called mistaken by you, that sola scriptura means believing nothing unless scripture directs it. Please tell me where I am mistaken.

I don't find anything disturbing about using God's word to be a guide to doctrine unless it is proposed as the only guide. There are too many reasonable interpretations one can pull from the bible. In one place, Jesus says you don't have life within you unless you eat of the son of man, in another place Jesus says whoever believes in the son has eternal life, and in another place Jesus says one must obey the son to have eternal life.

Again, I raise the issue of human cloning which cannot reasonably be asserted as being condemned in the bible? Is it therefore permissible? What about contraception which was condemned recently by all Christians until modern times?

 

[Albion]

Yes, I am under the impression, called mistaken by you, that sola scriptura means believing nothing unless scripture directs it. Please tell me where I am mistaken.

Sola Scriptura means simply what the words add up to--the Scripture Alone. This does not mean that we do nothing but what we can find in Scripture, but that Scripture is our sole authority for determining doctrine. That was the whole point at the time of the Reformation when this became a cause of the Reformers--the Word of God, NOT the Word of God and human speculation, legend, custom, rationalizations, etc. all considered equal to each other with the church leaders selecting some of it to be made obligatory upon the people No, the word of God is unimpeachable and of the highest authority--as the Bible itself tells us repeatedly.

Now, that's a somewhat long explanation, so if there are any follow-up questions, I'm happy to answer.

I don't find anything disturbing about using God's word to be a guide to doctrine unless it is proposed as the only guide. There are too many reasonable interpretations one can pull from the bible.

Just a minute. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater there, aren't we? First, you don't deny that the Bible is God's word and presumably God can't be trumped in the truth department, but you say to set it aside anyway just because different people have read different things into it or didn't understand it.

That's backwards. What should be said is that we should then work to get the right understanding, knowing that it's there.

And BTW, there is NO OTHER source of authority, such as I listed, that is free from diverse interpretations and linguistic problems, so you gain nothing anyway by setting aside God's word in favor of Man's word.

Again, I raise the issue of human cloning which cannot reasonably be asserted as being condemned in the bible? Is it therefore permissible? What about contraception which was condemned recently by all Christians until modern times?

I don't agree that the Bible cannot be used in these cases, but what authority are you suggesting be followed instead--one that gives an easy answer but isn't known to have any ability to judge? That's no solution.

 

[saintboniface]

Sola Scriptura means simply what the words add up to--the Scripture Alone. This does not mean that we do nothing but what we can find in Scripture, but that Scripture is our sole authority for determining doctrine.
Now, that's a somewhat long explanation, so if there are any follow-up questions, I'm happy to answer.
Just a minute. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater there, aren't we? First, you don't deny that the Bible is God's word and presumably God can't be trumped in the truth department, but you say to set it aside anyway just because different people have read different things into it or didn't understand it.

That's backwards. What should be said is that we should then work to get the right understanding, knowing that it's there.

And BTW, there is NO OTHER source of authority, such as I listed, that is free from diverse interpretations and linguistic problems, so you gain nothing anyway by setting aside God's word in favor of Man's word.

I don't agree that the Bible cannot be used in these cases, but what authority are you suggesting be followed instead--one that gives an easy answer but isn't known to have any ability to judge? That's no solution.

Just as we have faith that the bible is inspired by God, we can have faith that God inspires the teachings of the Catholic Church. There is no difference whatsoever in those leaps of faith. In the bible, 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, etc. You already acknowledged that some authority was granted to Peter but you won't say what or how much. These passages cannot just be put aside. They have to have some substantive meaning.

The authority I am suggesting be followed is that of the Catholic Church. It claims to have the authority. It claims that it is the faith handed on generation to generation beginning with the apostles. Someone was given authority by Jesus and Jesus founded a Church. Who was given the authority and were is that Church today?

 

[shturt678s]

No Bible translation can be the inspired Word of God, ie, nor preserved enough = / = Original inspired Autographs.

Secondly one's perception of the Contextual interpretation of a good Text even results in diverse interpretations where each think they have the one valid interpretation by the Holy Spirit.

Just an encouraging head's up, :o

Old Jack

 

[Albion]

Just as we have faith that the bible is inspired by God, we can have faith that God inspires the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Now you're back to witnessing your own faith rather than discussing the topic.

What am I supposed to say in return? We can have faith in the Bible?

We already know that. On the other hand, BOTH of our churches believe it to be the word of God. Only one thinks we need to rely upon the word of Men in addition to it, and you can't suggest any reason why that should be done.

 

[saintboniface]

Now you're back to witnessing your own faith rather than discussing the topic.

What am I supposed to say in return? We can have faith in the Bible?

We already know that. On the other hand, BOTH of our churches believe it to be the word of God. Only one thinks we need to rely upon the word of Men in addition to it, and you can't suggest any reason why that should be done.

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.

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

 

[saintboniface]

Secondly one's perception of the Contextual interpretation of a good Text even results in diverse interpretations where each think they have the one valid interpretation by the Holy Spirit.
Old Jack

And therein lies the problem with sola scriptura.