Sola Scriptura?

Nick Park

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Therein lies the problem, from Arianism to JW's to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Atheism, all will equally claim their own Sola Scriptura personally preferred interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one . .

This is quite ironic since there's only one side in this thread that is insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one. Kelly1 and yourself think that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one, and Kelly1 has even stated elsewhere that he thinks it highly unlikely that anything could convince him otherwise.

The non-Catholics in this thread believe that each Christian can interpret Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and that should provide sufficient clarity for each person to know how to be saved and enter into a relationship with God. However, we freely admit that we are never going to be 100% correct in our interpretation of other aspects of Scripture.

Also notice the zero interest or focus in talking about or pursing what Christians have in common.

Nonsense. I have politely answered Kelly1's questions - even though they appear to be nothing more than a bait for him to tell us how the Catholic Church is right and the rest of us are all wrong. Meanwhile, I will continue to spend the majority of my time talking about and pursuing what Christians have in common, which is why, among my other commitments, I will in the next few weeks be speaking about the Eighth Amendment at a number of Sunday masses in Catholic churches and also speaking at a Symposium on the Family at Clonliffe College as part of Ecumenical Bible week.

antiskeptic

Bob Marley wrote:

Therein lies the problem, from Arianism to JW's to the Westboro Baptist Church, to Atheism, all will equally claim their own Sola Scriptura personally preferred interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one . .

The problem, I think, lies in your misunderstanding of what the point of the thread is from the perspective of those being challenged by the OP

Your own preferred interpretation is simply tacked onto the list above and is asked the question: how are you to differentiate your own means of arrival at the conclusion you do from all the other methods.

Just as with the most elemental of exams, the interest isn't in you posting what you feel is the correct answer, it lies in you "showing your work".

All you seem capable of is the attempt to extract yourself from the exam by claiming to have already passed the exam.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing. Yours is as valid as his save for God gathering you in the same room and adjudicating on the matter.

Outside that it's just your interpretation vs. his.

There's nothing to elevate his method of arriving at an interpretation over yours. And vice versa. God would have to adjudicate on that too to resolve it to your mutual satisfaction

So. What you find best for you is all anyone has.

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

If our salvation depends on correct interpretation of scripture, then I'm sure God would make provision for that need. And I think 1 Tim 3:15 answers that question ("...in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth). Note Timothy does not say Scripture is the foundation of truth. Hence this thread.

I'm trying my best here to point out that self-interpretation is seriously flawed but it appears the issue is being brushed off as a non-issue. History has shown what happens different interpretations take hold and divide the Church.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

I think this post demonstrates how bizarre your argument is.

Nobody in a million years would ever, by reading Scripture, come up the ideas of going to a priest to receive absolution, going to 'Mass', or receiving Jesus in 'the Bless Sacrament' being necessary for salvation.

These are extra-biblical requirements, and, in my opinion, demonstrate the folly of trusting a man-made institution or denomination to interpret Scripture on our behalf.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I think this post demonstrates how bizarre your argument is.

Nobody in a million years would ever, by reading Scripture, come up the ideas of going to a priest to receive absolution, going to 'Mass', or receiving Jesus in 'the Bless Sacrament' being necessary for salvation.

Nothing bizarre about it at all.

In John 20:23, we see the institution of the sacrament of penance. Though it doesn't explicitly say that this authority would be handed down through ordination/apostolic succession, it's pretty clear that the apostles were given the power to forgive sins. Why would this end with the death of the apostles? Why make this authority temporary?

The first Mass was the Last Supper (Mt 26:26) and we see that this continued in 1st Corinthians 11.

The problem is that "protestants" have thrown out Tradition which is one of the pillars of the Church (1 Tim 3:15), along with Scripture.

antiskeptic

I'll quote myself first:

Nothing. Yours is as valid as his save for God gathering you in the same room and adjudicating on the matter.

Outside that it's just your interpretation vs. his.

There's nothing to elevate his method of arriving at an interpretation over yours. And vice versa. God would have to adjudicate on that too to resolve it to your mutual satisfaction

So. What you find best for you is all anyone has.

Let me set out the hierarchy facing all who suppose there to be an absolute truth.

1. The Truth

2. A black box (the mechanism by which an individual accesses the truth)

3. The individual


We are discussing the workings of the black box. How does it work, is it two way (e.g. the truth comes down through it / we go up through it to get to truth). We can argue all we like about the merits of our black box over another's black box but we are ultimately left with the last line in my quote: we ultimately go with the black box which we figure best.

kelly1 wrote: »

When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls.

1. Sola scriptura for me means all scripture is God breathed. It is the sole God-source identically available to all men, insofar as it's available to men.

2. I don't believe scripture is necessary in order that a person be saved. Nor do I believe that a person needs scripture in order to commune with God or follow his ordinances. Doesn't the RC church suppose people, who've never heard of Christ and who've never been exposed to the scriptures, can yet avail of salvation? I gather the precise mechanism whereby this occurs goes a little light on detail, but the point holds - no scripture necessarily required according to RC.

I'd point to the case of Abraham, who had no scripture (or Jesus) to rely on, which undergirds my own view on this.

So: a disagreement about the workings of the black box at the very outset. My own view supported by the RC church, I gather.

Does God want to us to go to a priest and receive absolution or is it enough to confess our sins in private. Do we need to go to Mass or is community/private prayer sufficient? Do we need to receive Jesus in the Bless Sacrament in order to be saved? When Paul spoke about salvation through faith, did he presuppose the things I just mentioned?

You have one view, I have another. There's no argumentation supporting your view presented here so we move on.

If our salvation depends on correct interpretation of scripture, then I'm sure God would make provision for that need.

We're back to the question: is scripture necessary for salvation. I say no. How do you develop your position here?

then I'm sure God would make provision for that need. And I think 1 Tim 3:15 answers that question ("...in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth). Note Timothy does not say Scripture is the foundation of truth. Hence this thread.

I'm trying my best not to quote scripture given the inevitable tendency for each side to try to show how what's written weaves in perfectly with their own view.



The core thing being demonstrated here is your presentation of how you suppose the black box to work for you. You suppose something: an accurate reading of scripture needed for salvation. Ergo, it makes sense (to you) that God would provide a source of accurate interpretation > it's clear that self-interpretation leads to a whole range of views > ergo there must be a one true church to circumvent these problems > you look for what you think is the best established church > you arrive at RC. It's perfectly logical, given the suppositions that get you started.


But where did you get these suppositions - say the one about scripture being required for salvation? If you say "from the one true church" then you are into circular reasoning - you've taken as true, something the church has said, in an effort to determine whether that same church is the one true church

If you read scripture to arrive at this supposition on scripture's necessity, or to arrive at the conclusion that the RC church is God-appointed, then you've used personal interpretation to arrive at a conclusion. Which puts you in the same boat as me.

I'm trying my best here to point out that self-interpretation is seriously flawed but it appears the issue is being brushed off as a non-issue. History has shown what happens different interpretations take hold and divide the Church.

I've been trying. for quite a while now, to get you to realize that you yourself are either:

- blindly accepting the RC claim about it's own authority and ability to interpret scripture. In which case you've hitched yourself to circular reasoning: the one true church interprets scriptures which allow it to conclude it is the one true church.

- are interpreting scriptures for yourself / applying own reasoning such as to arrive at the conclusion that the RC church is God-appointed. In which case you are self-interpreting such as to form the root of your theology. All springs from the root you yourself establish.

I'd appreciate that if neither of these applicable, then you provide an alternative undergirding for your position - one that doesn't put you in the same boat as me.


-

My black box has no issue with the fact of division. Or indeed, (from my perspective) the existence of a powerful and longstanding institution like the RC church - which I consider to be on a seriously wrong track. I get the reasons why you figure the need for a nice, neat, linear route from God to today - but I don't share them. I don't share them because I've got a black box which can accommodate messy alternatives.

I think humanity is messy and divisions inevitable. I think God works around this fact, rather than steamrollering over it with a One True Church. Given the big picture being his saving and forming relationships with individuals, he can accommodate partially correct/ incorrect views people have of him. They have their education, their social conditioning, their religions, their intelligence all working for/against a correct view of him. And he works with that, easing the person onwards.

I can accommodate, in my black box, that which yours cannot. My black box doesn't worry if people have the wrong end of the theological stick: be it Fred Phelps, the JW's, the Muslims, the Roman Catholics and ultimately, flaws/incompleteness in my own thinking. God is bigger and better than people having to go through a narrow theological gate.

I think God is interested in the heart and insofar as the heart wants him, he will enlighten. He's forming relationships with his children - not setting theology/performance exams.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem is that "protestants" have thrown out Tradition which is one of the pillars of the Church (1 Tim 3:15), along with Scripture.

"15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"

No mention of traditions here.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

"15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"

No mention of traditions here.

So what? How can you conclude from that the tradition didn't/doesn't exist??

2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Let me see you wriggle out of that one.

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

This is quite ironic since there's only one side in this thread that is insisting that their interpretation of Scripture is the authentic one.

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Nick Park wrote: »

Kelly1 and yourself think that the Roman Catholic interpretation is the correct one, and Kelly1 has even stated elsewhere that he thinks it highly unlikely that anything could convince him otherwise.

Well I can't speak for Kelly, but personally, I'd be extremely open to being convinced that the Catholic Church and the centuries of saints, scholars and theologians have it wrong, but I've yet to see or feel anything to convince me otherwise. After God intervened and brought me kicking and screaming back to Christianity, I looked everywhere. I vowed to let the truth lead me to wherever it went no matter what. To my great surprise, and actual consternation if truth be told, I discovered that the Catholic doctrines are the ones that are anchored in logic, reason and history, and it was in the Catholic Church and sacraments that I had the intense in-describable in-explainable spiritual experiences. The Catholic Church attracts the greatest Saints, but also the greatest sinners, and the greatest hatred. I have not found, despite looking extremely hard, anywhere else to go, or even one that comes close. Like the Lord I may be crucified for sticking with and pursuing the truth, but that's a price I'm completely willing to pay. Truth is important to me, and not how I would like things to be.

Nick Park wrote: »

The non-Catholics in this thread believe that each Christian can interpret Scripture with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and that should provide sufficient clarity for each person to know how to be saved and enter into a relationship with God. However, we freely admit that we are never going to be 100% correct in our interpretation of other aspects of Scripture.

Personally I won't settle for any argument or claim that does not hold up to 100% scrutiny. I've yet to find a Catholic doctrine that does not stand up to deeper study, logic, reason, and prayer. Life would be alot easier and more pleasant for me if it was any other Church, and they stood up to the same rigor I impose on their claims as I do upon Catholicism, but unfortunately they don't, and so I find myself in the Catholic Church. If I ever found one that did, I'd be happy to switch, because personally, I have go to where the truth leads, wherever that may be. To thine own self be true above all else.

Nick Park wrote: »

Nonsense. I have politely answered Kelly1's questions - even though they appear to be nothing more than a bait for him to tell us how the Catholic Church is right and the rest of us are all wrong. Meanwhile, I will continue to spend the majority of my time talking about and pursuing what Christians have in common, which is why, among my other commitments, I will in the next few weeks be speaking about the Eighth Amendment at a number of Sunday masses in Catholic churches and also speaking at a Symposium on the Family at Clonliffe College as part of Ecumenical Bible week.

Firstly the post wasn't directed at you personally, but now you mentioned it, looking at your post history, there is no sign of any great ecumenism from your posts. In fact not much in the way of anything about actual Christianity or Jesus at all from you on this forum. I can only go by your own post/thread creation history here, and apart from your recent posts on the abortion thread, the vast majority of your posting history is taken up with making sectarian digs at Catholicism.

Nick Park

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Now you're playing silly beggars.

I didn't say denominations' interpretations aren't authentic. I said that most denominations don't claim that their's is the authentic one.

Firstly the post wasn't directed at you personally, but now you mentioned it, looking at your post history, there is no sign of any great ecumenism from your posts. In fact not much in the way of anything about actual Christianity or Jesus at all from you on this forum. I can only go by your own post/thread creation history here, and apart from your recent posts on the abortion thread, the vast majority of your posting history is taken up with making sectarian digs at Catholicism.

Sorry, life doesn't work like that. Disagreeing with your denomination during a discussion, or expressing a different viewpoint, doesn't equate to 'sectarian digs'.

antiskeptic

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Refreshing to hear every other Christian denomination and yourself insists their interpretation is not authentic. Pity they weren't more up front about this, it would save a lot of confusion, but inauthentic interpretation is not what I'm looking for.

Science isn't inauthentic. It takes the same approach that theologies other than your own does. A tentative, best-fit of the observations - realising that new observations will mature the view.

Your own ecumenism doesn't seem up to the task of appreciating that that's the approach

Well I can't speak for Kelly, but personally, I'd be extremely open to being convinced that the Catholic Church and the centuries of saints, scholars and theologians have it wrong

Nobody is saying they are wrong. They are saying they are like everyone else - capable of not being 100% right.

but I've yet to see or feel anything to convince me otherwise. After God intervened and brought me kicking and screaming back to Christianity, I looked everywhere. I vowed to let the truth lead me to wherever it went no matter what. To my great surprise, and actual consternation if truth be told, I discovered that the Catholic doctrines are the ones that are anchored in logic, reason and history,

You accuse of others of utilising straw men. Do you know what that also involves: to argue the weakest elements of anothers case, rather than the strongest.

You ignore that others are like you:

- they too have been brought kicking and screaming (thieves on crosses) to God.

- they too utilise logic, reason and history to draw conclusions

- they too are after the truth

Rather than deal with that difficulty, you suppose others take the view they do merely because that's "how they would like things to be."

and it was in the Catholic Church and sacraments that I had the intense in-describable in-explainable spiritual experiences.

On it goes: others have had similar experiences outside the Catholic church. Whilst the others can accept you've had those experiences and would have no issue with them being authentic, you appear to have to denigrate others and their experiences because they don't fit into your view.

The Catholic Church attracts the greatest Saints, but also the greatest sinners, and the greatest hatred. I have not found, despite looking extremely hard, anywhere else to go, or even one that comes close.

Can you see the pattern: others will cleave to their view / their church for the exact same reasons you do to yours. They have found a church that fits them.

You somehow manage to suppose that your choice of church is immune to internal influence guiding you, lending preference to .. a church that fits you. You might simply be a type that likes certainty, rigidity, settledness (not that these are bad traits in themselves). And so, gravitate towards that which offers you that.

Would you not grant others the same privilege? I mean, I'm quite comfortable with the tentative approach. I mean, I used to be a YEC for crying out loud!

Truth is important to me, and not how I would like things to be.

And so say a lot of us. Does it occur to you (if you put on your "I'll argue the strongest part of the opponents case, rather than it's weakest" hat again) that a theology which is settled and fixed is an easier thing to deal with than one which has fluidity?

Personally I won't settle for any argument or claim that does not hold up to 100% scrutiny

Which supposes the scrutinizer omniscient, such as to detect an error in the claim.

The safer bet is to suppose your scrutinizing somewhat less that perfect. As a faculty which can be honed and modified. And as it is honed and modified, it see's things in former scrutinized claims which it didn't see before.

This leads naturally to an evolving theology, sometimes requiring significant shake up (a function of how improved the scrutinizing ability becomes). You seem closed at the outset.

I've yet to find a Catholic doctrine that does not stand up to deeper study, logic, reason, and prayer.

As I say, a lot of the folk whose approach you denigrate would say the same thing of the non-Catholic doctrines they've studied. That ought to give pause for thought. But doesn't seem to.

Life would be alot easier and more pleasant for me if it was any other Church

Indeed. You wouldn't, for a start, have to occupy this impossible position: finding others sit in the same boat as you regarding their rigorous approach, their deep spiritual experience, their prayer life, their search for truth .. and having no option (due to the rigidity of your theology) to denigrate them and their approach.

You don't seem to realise that in the measure you torpedo holes in their boat, you sink your own. If their logic, reason, their honest search for truth, their 100% scrutiny, their deep spiritual experiences, etc. led them down the garden path then what's going to keep lil' ol you afloat.

The only option remaining, should you chose it, would appear to be extreme arrogance. That you were brighter, more truth-searching, more logical and reason-utilizing than they.

I have go to where the truth leads, wherever that may be. To thine own self be true above all else.

Godspeed with that. Fortunately, in my view, God is accommodating of our child like efforts to wrestle with the Truth.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

So what? How can you conclude from that the tradition didn't/doesn't exist??

I didn't say anything about it not existing. You said tradition was a pillar of the church and cited a verse which didn't mention tradition being a pillar of the church.

I was merely pointing that out.

2 Thess 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Let me see you wriggle out of that one.

1. Tradition. I've no issue with things said/done by Christ and the apostles forming tradition which is passed on by Christ and the apostles. Do this in memory of me .. for example.

That doesn't mean Tradition in the somewhat more overblown RC sense however.

Interestingly, in the article linked below, the appearances of the word "tradition" in scripture most often have to do with a warning against or an admonition in the face of adherence to them. In essence:"beware the traditions of men".

Apparently, there are only three uses of the word in the whole of scripture by which RC builds the case for sacred tradition being a biblical concept. One of them is your example.




2. The trouble with these snippets of scriptures (a.k.a. by many as "proof verses") is the lack of context.

From CARM.org. https://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-testament-2Thess-3-6

The context shows us that the tradition Paul is speaking of is the tradition of working hard and not being idle. This admonition is presumably related to what he wrote about in the preceding chapter (chapter 2) regarding the false teaching that Jesus had already returned. People had probably decided to give up their livelihoods and stop working. Paul warns them not to do that. Instead, they are to keep the traditions that they have been taught; namely, to work hard and not be idle.

2 Thess. 3:6 has nothing to do with the "Sacred Tradition" claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. It is about not being idle and failing to work. But that hasn't stopped the Roman Catholic church from reading into the scripture the idea that "tradition" means apostolic pronouncements that were orally deposited to the Roman Catholic Church which then releases them over time. They should stick with what the text actually says, and not what it does not.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say anything about it not existing. You said tradition was a pillar of the church and cited a verse which didn't mention tradition being a pillar of the church.

I was merely pointing that out.

Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction, I see your point now.

Why I'm trying to say is that according to 1 Tim 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I think "protestants" of various denomination have it backwards because the New Testament came from the Church, not the other way around. Therefore it is the Church which is in possession of the truth and the bible is a record of that truth. The dog wags the tail.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. Tradition. I've no issue with things said/done by Christ and the apostles forming tradition which is passed on by Christ and the apostles. Do this in memory of me .. for example.

That doesn't mean Tradition in the somewhat more overblown RC sense however.

Overblown? I don't think there is any reason to suppose the NT records every article of truth which the Church possesses. So for instance, while we see Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins, it doesn't mention the successors of the apostles being given the same authority. I would expect this was taken as a given.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently, there are only three uses of the word in the whole of scripture by which RC builds the case for sacred tradition being a biblical concept. One of them is your example.

Again, this is the tail wagging the dog. The Church is the source of truth and the bible records that truth taught by the Church.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. The trouble with these snippets of scriptures (a.k.a. by many as "proof verses") is the lack of context.
From CARM.org. https://carm.org/tradition-in-the-new-testament-2Thess-3-6

2 Thess 2:15 "so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

2 Thess 3:16 ""Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."


The above two verses clearly show the positive aspect of tradition, as opposed to the "traditions of men". These traditions were communicated by word of mouth and by letter. They are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction, I see your point now.

An apology on boards. The angels are smiling down Cheers.

Why I'm trying to say is that according to 1 Tim 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Okay. And we both agree that the church is capable of being flawed. Whether the institutional church or the church consisting only of the body of believers.

I don't see how you progress here: whether my view or yours we must suppose nuance to this verse.

I think "protestants" of various denomination have it backwards because the New Testament came from the Church, not the other way around. Therefore it is the Church which is in possession of the truth and the bible is a record of that truth. The dog wags the tail.

God breathed the scriptures > the church, imperfect though it is is the channel for them. We are more interested in the electricity which enters our home than the cables it come along.

The church (the body of believers church) doesn't place itself above scripture.

Overblown? I don't think there is any reason to suppose the NT records every article of truth which the Church possesses. So for instance, while we see Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins, it doesn't mention the successors of the apostles being given the same authority. I would expect this was taken as a given.

Why would you expect this - if not merely inserting what makes sense to you personally into the mix? It's as if you come to the end of a road and make a giant leap. Once you land where you expect you ought to land you're happy.

Can you not see the weakness in this?

The overblown-ness has to do with the scant scriptural support for very significant positions. Sacred Tradition is a very big position to hold (along with say, apostolic succession). A significant root into scripture is required, since all flows from that. But the roots aren't there: witness a mere three mentions of tradition, with contexts that can't support the weight of position which has been rested upon them.

2 Thess 2:15 "so then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

2 Thess 3:16 ""Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."


The above two verses clearly show the positive aspect of tradition, as opposed to the "traditions of men". These traditions were communicated by word of mouth and by letter. They are not necessarily recorded in Scripture.

And that's fine. So, how to determine a positive tradition when we know there is much warning against the tradition of men?

You can't say "The Church is the decider" on the grounds of circular reasoning: we are examining the case for The Church being in a position to assert Sacred Tradition. We cannot assume they are in this position in order to support the case for them being in this position.

kelly1

antiskeptic wrote: »

An apology on boards. The angels are smiling down Cheers.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. And we both agree that the church is capable of being flawed. Whether the institutional church or the church consisting only of the body of believers.

I don't see how you progress here: whether my view or yours we must suppose nuance to this verse.

The Church is the entire body of the faithful but it still has leaders (just like Peter, James, John and Paul). I wouldn't get hung up on the word "institutional".

Jesus said the Spirit would lead the apostles "into all truth" but He never guaranteed their impeccability. Hence the scandals we've seen down through the ages.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God breathed the scriptures > the church, imperfect though it is is the channel for them. We are more interested in the electricity which enters our home than the cables it come along.

The church (the body of believers church) doesn't place itself above scripture.

If the Church is merely a channel for truth, then how do you explain 1 Tim 3:15 ("the pillar and foundation of the truth")?

As you know, scripture cannot be changed. All we can do now is interpret it. But keep in mind that scripture came from the Church (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Church did not come from Scripture.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would you expect this - if not merely inserting what makes sense to you personally into the mix? It's as if you come to the end of a road and make a giant leap. Once you land where you expect you ought to land you're happy.

Can you not see the weakness in this?

I see weakness in the suggestion that the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins but not their successors. Why would Jesus make such a temporary provision? That is what needs explanation. It's more logical to assume that the authority to forgive sins was a lasting arrangements, just like the Holy Communion and baptism are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The overblown-ness has to do with the scant scriptural support for very significant positions. Sacred Tradition is a very big position to hold (along with say, apostolic succession). A significant root into scripture is required, since all flows from that. But the roots aren't there: witness a mere three mentions of tradition, with contexts that can't support the weight of position which has been rested upon them.

The tail wagging the dog again. Have you not read the Early Church Fathers about Tradition? It's an historical fact that the Apostles appointed successors! Of course you can stick your head in the sand at the expense of truth, that's up to you.

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

Now you're playing silly beggars.

I didn't say denominations' interpretations aren't authentic. I said that most denominations don't claim that their's is the authentic one.

You're the one making the false claim that only the Catholic Church claims their interpretation is authentic. Contradictoy interpretions cannot all be authentic, that's simple logic.

Nick Park wrote: »

Sorry, life doesn't work like that. Disagreeing with your denomination during a discussion, or expressing a different viewpoint, doesn't equate to 'sectarian digs'.

That's not what I said so you can drop the misrepresentation attempt, I couldn't care less with what you disagree with or believe in, what I do object to is making a sectarian dig or false claim about Catholics and Catholics while doing so.

Bob_Marley

antiskeptic wrote: »

Science isn't inauthentic. It takes the same approach that theologies other than your own does. A tentative, best-fit of the observations - realising that new observations will mature the view.

Your own ecumenism doesn't seem up to the task of appreciating that that's the approach





Nobody is saying they are wrong. They are saying they are like everyone else - capable of not being 100% right.




You accuse of others of utilising straw men. Do you know what that also involves: to argue the weakest elements of anothers case, rather than the strongest.

You ignore that others are like you:

- they too have been brought kicking and screaming (thieves on crosses) to God.

- they too utilise logic, reason and history to draw conclusions

- they too are after the truth

Rather than deal with that difficulty, you suppose others take the view they do merely because that's "how they would like things to be."




On it goes: others have had similar experiences outside the Catholic church. Whilst the others can accept you've had those experiences and would have no issue with them being authentic, you appear to have to denigrate others and their experiences because they don't fit into your view.




Can you see the pattern: others will cleave to their view / their church for the exact same reasons you do to yours. They have found a church that fits them.

You somehow manage to suppose that your choice of church is immune to internal influence guiding you, lending preference to .. a church that fits you. You might simply be a type that likes certainty, rigidity, settledness (not that these are bad traits in themselves). And so, gravitate towards that which offers you that.

Would you not grant others the same privilege? I mean, I'm quite comfortable with the tentative approach. I mean, I used to be a YEC for crying out loud!










And so say a lot of us. Does it occur to you (if you put on your "I'll argue the strongest part of the opponents case, rather than it's weakest" hat again) that a theology which is settled and fixed is an easier thing to deal with than one which has fluidity?








Which supposes the scrutinizer omniscient, such as to detect an error in the claim.

The safer bet is to suppose your scrutinizing somewhat less that perfect. As a faculty which can be honed and modified. And as it is honed and modified, it see's things in former scrutinized claims which it didn't see before.

This leads naturally to an evolving theology, sometimes requiring significant shake up (a function of how improved the scrutinizing ability becomes). You seem closed at the outset.







As I say, a lot of the folk whose approach you denigrate would say the same thing of the non-Catholic doctrines they've studied. That ought to give pause for thought. But doesn't seem to.




Indeed. You wouldn't, for a start, have to occupy this impossible position: finding others sit in the same boat as you regarding their rigorous approach, their deep spiritual experience, their prayer life, their search for truth .. and having no option (due to the rigidity of your theology) to denigrate them and their approach.

You don't seem to realise that in the measure you torpedo holes in their boat, you sink your own. If their logic, reason, their honest search for truth, their 100% scrutiny, their deep spiritual experiences, etc. led them down the garden path then what's going to keep lil' ol you afloat.

The only option remaining, should you chose it, would appear to be extreme arrogance. That you were brighter, more truth-searching, more logical and reason-utilizing than they.





Godspeed with that. Fortunately, in my view, God is accommodating of our child like efforts to wrestle with the Truth.

As predicted . . classic antiskeptic misrepresentation and straw manning yet again.

Do you really think people are stupid enough to waste time on this tactic and fallacious method of argumentation ?

As already stated over and over by me, and in direct contrast to your attempted misrepresentation above. . .I couldn't care less what denomination or brand of Christianity you or anyone else follows or what Church you do or don't go to, or what you believe or don't believe in. It's utterly irrelevant to me. The only think I object to is your ad nausuem constant strawmanning and misrepresentation of Catholic beliefs and Catholics, and continual misrepresentation of every post made in reply to you fallacious arguments about Catholicism.

Thinkingaboutit

Leaving aside how Luther edited the Bible on his own authority while in the process of paraphrasing existing German translation (this fairly young Wittenburg Augustinian Professor did not have sufficient contextual grasp of Koine/Alexandrian Greek to somehow translate anew, a fairly rare thing to have anyhow, rather how the translators of KJV appear to have roved between the Great Bible/William Tyndale's Bible/Bishop's Bible and Fr Gregory Martin SJ's Douay-Rheim text), and misrepresentation of Catholic Teaching in this thread, Sola Scriptura doesn't work.

Here's why.

There are certain Protestant mainstays (excluding Anglo and Old Catholics/Ultrecht Union obviously) like rejecting Maccabees (2 Maccabees was particularly awkward as it referenced praying for the souls of the dead and the intercession of the Saints, 15:11–17), deprecrating James' words on works, that Roman's 3:28 has the word alone in it, accepting as given Luther's ordering (James, 'an Epistle of straw' at the back etc.) of Scripture, as well as a venerable body of scholarly work(for instance Calvinism emphasised predestination which drew upon St Augustine's arguments for double predestination and St Jerome could support that limitation of human effort). Aside from that any Protestant denomination or community which lasts more than a year will form a body of accepted interpretations which might be informed by Protestant scholars, be solely subjective or personal of the pastor or followers, or mix the two. The meaning of Sola Scriptura is just very elastic, too elastic too be usable. Catholicism very much draws on Tradition, but so too does any Protestant community.

kelly1

It occurred to me recently that the gap between atheism and theism is similar to the gap between protestant/evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

It occurred to me recently that the gap between atheism and theism is similar to the gap between protestant/evangelical Christianity and Catholicism.

How so?

kelly1

J C wrote: »

How so?

Because some people can't see the truth, beauty and richness of the Catholic faith.

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

Because some people can't see the truth, beauty and richness of the Catholic faith.

... including many lapsed Roman Catholics !!!:);)

kelly1

J C wrote: »

... including many lapsed Roman Catholics !!!:);)

Sadly true, JC.

I'd like to summarize the points I've made so far in an effort to show that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical:

1. There is nothing in scripture which claims that scripture is sole authority on Christian revelation.

2. 1 Tim 3:15 contradicts Sola Scriptura (the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth)

3. Scripture came from the Church (apostles/evangelists) , the Church did not come from Scripture. Hence the Church is the greater authority. When I say Church, the mean the apostles and their successors.

4. It is an historical fact that the apostles appointed successors. This is recorded in the New Testament and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

5. Jesus made Peter the earthly foundation on which the Church would be built (Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church)

6. The bible can't speak for itself, it has to be interpreted *authoritatively* to understand God's objective truth. My belief is that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is that authority. This began with Peter who held the keys of the kingdom. (Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter,b and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesc will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven)

7. History clearly shows that individual interpretation doesn't work and has the effect of dividing the Church.

8. When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls. Hence the need for infallible doctrine.

9. Sola Scriptura is a novel doctrine which only approximately 1500 years after Christ walked on earth. It and the Reformation have done untold damage to the Church, the Body of Christ.

Nick Park

Kelly1, this is a bit of charade.

You post these threads that appear to want dialogue with non-Catholics by asking why they don't agree that your church is the only true church and that all others are wrong.

But when they try to engage in any kind of dialogue, your co-religionists start hurling accusations of sectarianism and bigotry around.

It's a bit like a girl at school who keeps asking, "Aren't I the most beautiful and intelligent girl at school? If you don't agree, then please tell me."

So we explain as nicely as we can why they obviously are neither the most beautiful or intelligent girl in school, perhaps by pointing out that they have failed crucial exams and have an acne problem.

Then we're told off for being mean.

Sorry, I'm up for honest dialogue any time. And I have great discussions with friends of all denominations where we can listen honestly to one another without getting bent out of shape. But I really don't see any benefit in participating in this charade.

kelly1

Nick, I'm all for honest dialogue too.

My honest feeling on the subject at hand is that people are not willing to face the truth about Sola Scriptura because that would lead them towards the Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine invented by Martin Luther and as such it is heretical.

I'm guessing there might be some posters here who think the RCC is Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist. Some Christians seem to spend more time condemning the RCC than preaching the Gospel of Christ. I've seen this first hand at events I attended where people felt it was their duty to lead me away for Catholic "idolatry".

But my contention is that that the devil and his minions have fooled millions of people into believing the RCC is a false Church. The Church is under fierce attack from the powers of darkness e.g. Freemasonry. I think Paul VI was right when he said "the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God". The Catholic Church is under attack precisely because it is the one true Church founded by Christ.

Just wondering, have any of the non-catholic Christians here read the biographies of the Catholic saints? e.g. St. Padre Pio, St. Catherine if Sienna, St. Faustina, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, etc, etc, etc. How could a Church rotten to the core produce such great saints? Yes, the Church is wounded through sin but the "gates of hell will not prevail".

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Just wondering, have any of the non-catholic Christians here read the biographies of the Catholic saints? e.g. St. Padre Pio, St. Catherine if Sienna, St. Faustina, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, etc, etc, etc. How could a Church rotten to the core produce such great saints? Yes, the Church is wounded through sin but the "gates of hell will not prevail".

I certainly never said that the Catholic Church is rotten to the core. I have said that its past history disqualifies any arrogant claim that it is the one true church.

I would say the same to any poster who tried to argue that any denomination was the one true church. I believe all denominations, including the one I belong to, are flawed. I believe God still loves flawed churches and denominations, just like he loves flawed people.

And I would be more inclined to say that the greatest saints in history be they Catholics like the ones you name, or Baptists like Billy Graham and Martin Luther King, or Lutherans like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, were produced by the Holy Spirit rather than their denominations.

antiskeptic

kelly1 wrote: »

I'd like to summarize the points I've made so far in an effort to show that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical:

The counters to which are:

1. There is nothing in scripture which claims that scripture is sole authority on Christian revelation.

That scripture is taken to be God breathed (and so, an authority) is a matter of own decision. That anything else be taken as an authority in addition is a matter of own decision.

If only scripture satisfies the own decision making process then sola scriptura. It's not that scripture has to say sola scriptura, rather, it's the default position unless you decide that something else has authority too.

How the hierarchy of multiple authorities is to be set out is also a matter of personal decision (hence scripture prime, others 2nd etc)

2. 1 Tim 3:15 contradicts Sola Scriptura (the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth)

This hinges on what you suppose the church to be. Given that both our definitions of church permit imperfection, neither of us have an issue with the church also being a source of that which is other than the truth.

3. Scripture came from the Church (apostles/evangelists) , the Church did not come from Scripture. Hence the Church is the greater authority. When I say Church, the mean the apostles and their successors.

Scripture came from God, via the apostles. Hence God has the greater authority.

Your point ignores this point.

4. It is an historical fact that the apostles appointed successors. This is recorded in the New Testament and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

The writings of the church fathers isn't taken as God breathed. Nor what they conclude the position to be.

Scripture doesn't itself determine apostolic succession in the way it's taken to be by RC. No problem if you've already concluded The Church above scripture - but you're arguing in a circle: first concluding the Church above scripture, in order to derive Church above scripture.

5. Jesus made Peter the earthly foundation on which the Church would be built (Mt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church)

Done to death

6. The bible can't speak for itself, it has to be interpreted *authoritatively* to understand God's objective truth.

No absolute need for authoritative interpretation. Salvation doesn't hinge on it, relationship with God doesn't hinge on it, repentence doesn't hinge on it. Etc

7. History clearly shows that individual interpretation doesn't work and has the effect of dividing the Church.

Only a problem if you consider the Church (as you see it) as the optimal arrangement. Not so if you don't

8. When it comes to salvation, we *need* certainty of what it is that God expects of us. We cannot afford to take chances with our immortal souls. Hence the need for infallible doctrine.

See above. Abraham had no scripture and he is the model of how salvation is wrought by God. Your own church supposes people can be saved without Christianity.

9. Sola Scriptura is a novel doctrine which only approximately 1500 years after Christ walked on earth. It and the Reformation have done untold damage to the Church, the Body of Christ.

Great age = accuracy is a flawed way of thinking. When God expresses irritation at the lazy churches of Revelation and talks of spitting them out, are we to suppose they they, because of longevity up to that point, were doing it right? Hardly.

Had God enough of the way the church had gone, 1500 years after it's instigation? With the Lord a year is like a day, afterall. From his perspective, he may well have acted quite promptly.

A spherical earth was a "novel" proposal in a world which had always countenanced a flat one.


-

The point isn't so much to convince you to "come over". Rather, to explain that there is no issue (to one who holds to sola scriptura) for holding the sola scriptura view. They have a rational and experiential reason for the hope that they have and proceed accordingly.

Thinkingaboutit

Protestantism relies on an edited Bible, for instance, removing books like Maccabees, which speaks against the error of rejecting Purgatory and invocation of the Saints (eg 2 Maccabees), adding a word to Romans 3:28 which changes its meaning. The errors, the heresies condemned in Exurge Domine could only be somehow supported with an edited, Protestant Bible. Yet even with a Protestant Bible, the errors of Protestantism fail. James has to be well nigh discounted, Romans (with an edited 3:28) has to made to overrule it. There are longstanding theological workaround that works proceed from faith, a contrived means to evade those words, but James 2:26 states baldly that faith without works is dead. Consider the editing, the cutting of the Bible and see how sola scriptura cannot work.

Your own church supposes people can be saved without Christianity

That is rank nonsense (see Cantate Domino, or just think sensibly). There is only one Church.

antiskeptic

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Protestantism relies on an edited Bible, for instance, removing books like Maccabees, which speaks against the error of rejecting Purgatory and invocation of the Saints (eg 2 Maccabees), adding a word to Romans 3:28 which changes its meaning. The errors, the heresies condemned in Exurge Domine could only be somehow supported with an edited, Protestant Bible. Yet even with a Protestant Bible, the errors of Protestantism fail. James has to be well nigh discounted, Romans (with an edited 3:28) has to made to overrule it. There are longstanding theological workaround that works proceed from faith, a contrived means to evade those words, but James 2:26 states baldly that faith without works is dead. Consider the editing, the cutting of the Bible and see how sola scriptura cannot work.



That is rank nonsense (see Cantate Domino, or just think sensibly). There is only one Church.

What strikes me as rank nonsense is the reliance on slivers of scripture to support massive doctrines.

Apostolic succession, the RC church as the Christ inaugurated authority, the pope.

(Was it yourself who supposed the bible to 'baldly state' the separation of sheep and goats was connected with good works (which it doesnt')?)

If the first half of Romans doesn't convince you of salvation by faith (alone), then no sliver-slinging on my part is going to do it.

-

Google: 'those who through no fault of their own 2nd vatican council' regarding salvation outside The Church.

antiskeptic

A parallel, involving the argument for a God-less commencement of the Universe.

"Don't let the cosmologists fool you on this. First they say there was nothing, then there was something (a singularity). Before you know it, they're off, pulling a hundred billion galaxies out of their cosmological hat"

The Catholic position, being posited in this thread, is like that: church fathers, division, it's always been this way, chopped up Bibles, pebbles/rocks, One True Church, God would have ensured an authority...

Where is the beginning though? What is the thing which gets this all going - and where does it come from? Where is the starting point, from which all else is pulled, like rabbits from a hat?

I've outlined my own position:

1. A personal encounter with God

2. Eyes open to see the God I'd encountered reflected in scripture.

In the measure scripture doesn't match the God I encountered, I re-examine scripture to see where I might have it wrong. And wrong I find I often have it.

By this measure, I cast out the Roman Catholic church. Not because they are all wrong, but they are not near enough the truth to make involvement with it, or guidance by it worthwhile. The mono-theology is considered by me to be behind my own. I'm free to keep advancing. They, being fixed and dogmatic and in places "inerrant", cannot - other than within the boundaries set.


What is the starting point for a Catholic? Not numbers 1,2,3,4... all jumbled up together. Not by pointing out the supposed flaw in my approach (e.g. "how do you know it was God you encountered?").

No, the starting point for a Catholic himself.

What's the central point on which all else rests?