Sola Scriptora

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh I am sorry if I mislead you or anyone else but I do believe that the Bible does contain all truths necessary for salvation, but the Bible is not clear enough that each one of us can intrerpret it however we want. So we both agree that the Bible does contain all truths necessary for salvation

So you have abandoned your OP??? Your OP said:

It is time to have a nice friendly debate over the issue of Sola Scriptora. What is Sola Scriptora some of you may ask? This is the idea that all the information that we need to know for salvation is contained entirely in the Bible.

You went on to say:

I of course don't buy into this notion and ask any person on here to prove to me and everyone else where it definantively states in the Bible that all we need to know is in the Bible.

So, not only did you incorrectly state what Sola Scriptura is, you have now thrown out your original premise, the very source of this debate...

Now that we agree on this, prove to me that you don't need an outside source to interpret the Bible for you or any other Christian walking the street.

First of all, I do utilize dictionaries, I study Hebrew, I utilize commentaries to help clarify ambiguous passages, and so forth. I read and I study the works of men more learned than me. The difference, is that I do not rely on them to interpret the Bible FOR me. I study on my own. I test their words against Scripture, and against each other. I utilize proper hermeneutic principles, and attempt lead out of the text the meaning that the author is trying to convey. I compare Scripture with Scripture and pay attention to contextual parameters and linguistic signals throughout the texts. There is no comparison between the tools I use to study with your notion that we need someone to interpret the Bible for us. There is no comparing my methods with the idea that there should be one group of men whose knowledge and teaching should be reverenced equal with Scripture, infallible, and to whom I should submit without reservation. I cannot and will not accept that such a body of people exists. The Bible gives us no promise of anyone or group of leaders in the New Testament Church having such authority.

Also you haven't addressed Mathew 16: 18-19. You ask what gives the magesterium the ability to interpret the scriptures better than anyone else? The answer is in Mathew 16: 18-19. Christ said in his own words that there would be ONE Church. This Church would be led by a man (Peter) who would be guided by the Holy spirit. Christ then goes on to tell Peter, mortal man, that he will give him the KEYS to the kingdom of Heaven and what ever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. This shows that Christ is giving a mortal man guided by the Holy Spirit special powers over the Church. You are also getting side tracked by this idea that all men who make up the magesterium are perfect. There are not as is the Pope. But when working together they have stayed consistent in their teachings on faiths and morals. This is what Christ promised in Mathew 16: 18-19.

Yes I did... Here is what I said this morning in answer to your question in Post #76 which you apparently did not bother to read. Here is your original question and my answer.

(from Pax)And I will direct you back to Mathew 16:18-19. Christ makes it clear that there will only be one Church and Hell will not prevail against His church. He is also giving a mortal man, Peter, the keys to this Church. What ever he binds on earth will be bound on earth and what ever he binds in heaven will be bound in heaven. How do you explain this passage?

Yes, and I understand that you define Christ's Church as "The Catholic Church." That is not how the Bible defines it. The Church is everyone who is born again, who has received Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior. There is not definition of the "The Church" outside of that.

As for the binding and loosing, keys to the Kingdom... This is where being Jewish comes in handy. Jesus was using typical Rabbinic terminology. He uses it not only in Matthew 16, but again in Matthew 18. Jesus is doing what Rabbis have done for centuries. He ordained more Rabbis. In ancient Rabbinic custom, when a Rabbi felt His talmidim (disciples) were ready to be ordained as Rabbis, he gave them the "keys of the Kingdom." What are these keys? The keys of the Kingdom where Rabbinic authority is concerned, amounts to Legislating, judiciating, and teaching. These form the tripod of Rabbinic authority within a given community. To "bind and loose" is better rendered as "permit and forbid, or grant or refuse," Jesus was ordaining them in these two chapters to be the leaders of His new community. They were the first Messianic Rabbis. However, it must be understood that this authority does not extend beyond the Scriptures. Neither Peter or any of the other apostles would have understood this to be typical Rabbinic authority which they had been familiar with their entire lives.

We find them excercizing this authority quite well under James' leadership in Acts 15. Jesus told them what every Rabbi said to His disciples: "What you forbid on earth, is forbidden in Heaven. What you permit on earth is permitted in heaven." Any Rabbinic student knew what this meant. In the days of the Temple it was believed that when the sacrifice for sin was offered on Yom Kippur, the same sacrifice was being made in heaven. When the high priest declared Israel clean, the same was declared in heaven.

Jesus was not extending to them infallibility, or the right to institute traditions that go beyond the pale of Scripture. He was certainly not extending them the false authority that many of the Pharisees had taken upon themselves. He was giving them the right to lead his new congregation, albeit within the framework and boundary of Scripture. Their authority to permit and forbid, to legislate, and judiciate did not exceed the boundary of Scripture, nor was it considered equal to Scripture. While he was establishing an authority structure, nowhere in Scripture do we read that those anointed and appointed by God as leaders in the Body of Christ are to be afforded the same reverence, or be considered as possessing the same infallibility as Scripture. Instead we are to test every teaching that comes across our plate, and hold it up to the only guaranteed infallible standard of truth given to us, the Scriptures.

[Guest shiloh357]

And herein lies our problem. Catholics don't take a verse or two and say, "See, there it is, there's your proof"

Uh, Yeah you do.

[EricH]

And herein lies our problem. Catholics don't take a verse or two and say, "See, there it is, there's your proof"

Uh, Yeah you do.

Fiosh just did this in the Virgin mary debate regarding God's glory. We all do that. The question is when we do it, do we take into account the wider context of the immediate passage, the book, the genre, and the Bible as a whole

[EricH]

Here's my problem. It takes a few seconds to write a question. It can take hours to research and write a thorough answer. Of course, every answer generates more questions. etc.....

I have right here in front of me several books that beautifully answer your questions. However, it would take days for me to fully develop and type out an answer for you. So I'm not sure how to approach this.

Not to mention there are 2 RC's debating with all the rest of you. And we are not theological experts, we're just doin' the best we can to present the teachings of the RCC. But we are not perfect. And I'm tired.

The only reason I've even had any significant time today is that I'm home from work with a cold/sore throat/fever.

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions one by one.

But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches and not simply trying to make Pax or I look like fools, PM me and I'll suggest a few books.

I understand. But Pax started this thread. None of us are perfect here, but this is not a Catholic site, so I would expect most of the posts not to support Catholic dogma. if you are interested in what my tradition teaches, let me know, and I can send you some material as well

[jmwhalen]

Here's my problem. It takes a few seconds to write a question. It can take hours to research and write a thorough answer. Of course, every answer generates more questions. etc.....

I have right here in front of me several books that beautifully answer your questions. However, it would take days for me to fully develop and type out an answer for you. So I'm not sure how to approach this.

Not to mention there are 2 RC's debating with all the rest of you. And we are not theological experts, we're just doin' the best we can to present the teachings of the RCC. But we are not perfect. And I'm tired.

The only reason I've even had any significant time today is that I'm home from work with a cold/sore throat/fever.

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions one by one.

But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches and not simply trying to make Pax or I look like fools, PM me and I'll suggest a few books.

_______________________________

Fiosh:

I will wait for your response.

Re. your ".... But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches.....I'll suggest a few books.":

There is no need to "suggest a few books"-the RCC teachings are very easy to discover and read, and there is no need for some "expert", in a book or otherwise, to "spin" these teachings. They are written in "5th grade English" that are easily understood-no "secret code" is required.. Here is a sample of official, RCC's "doctrine"/pronouncements re. interpretation of the Holy Bible -I quote official RCC sources verbatum:

"In order to restrain petulant minds, the Council further decrees that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding to his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred scriptures to his own sense of them contrary to that which hath been held, and still held, by Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of sacred writ, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers, even though such interpretations should never be published. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the Ordinaries, and published according to law". -Council of Trent, session IV

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magesterium of the Church, that is, to the pope and to the bishops in communion with him". -Catechism

"The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living, teaching office of the Church". -The Documents of Vatican II

"It is for the bishops, 'with whom the apostolic doctrine resides', suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially of the New Testament, and in particular the Gospels. They do this by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. Thus the children of the Church can familiarize themselves safely and profitably with sacred Scriptures, and become steeped in their spirit". -Vatican Council II

"...if the sacred books are permitted everywhere....in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good"(emphasis mine). -Council of Trent, recorded in Decrees of the Council of Trent, Schroeder, 273-278

"Of all the advice we can offer your Holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. If one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary(emphasis mine)" -Address given by the College of Cardinals to Pope Pius III, 1503

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

an ex "Roman" still awaiting my ex-communication papers

[EricH]

Shiloh I am sorry if I mislead you or anyone else but I do believe that the Bible does contain all truths necessary for salvation, but the Bible is not clear enough that each one of us can intrerpret it however we want. So we both agree that the Bible does contain all truths necessary for salvation, but what we don't agree on is that, I believe that we need outside source or authority to properly interpret scripture. Now that we agree on this, prove to me that you don't need an outside source to interpret the Bible for you or any other Christian walking the street. This is the real question. Also you haven't addressed Mathew 16: 18-19. You ask what gives the magesterium the ability to interpret the scriptures better than anyone else? The answer is in Mathew 16: 18-19. Christ said in his own words that there would be ONE Church. This Church would be led by a man (Peter) who would be guided by the Holy spirit. Christ then goes on to tell Peter, mortal man, that he will give him the KEYS to the kingdom of Heaven and what ever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. This shows that Christ is giving a mortal man guided by the Holy Spirit special powers over the Church. You are also getting side tracked by this idea that all men who make up the magesterium are perfect. There are not as is the Pope. But when working together they have stayed consistent in their teachings on faiths and morals. This is what Christ promised in Mathew 16: 18-19.

Now I am hearing 2 different things from you and Fiosh. According to Fiosh, tradition and scripture are inseperable and can only be rightly understood through the lense of the magisterium. Now you say that in terms of salvation the scriptures are sufficient (apart from traditions). But you still need the eyes of the magisterium.

The text you have cited as proof of the necessity of a magisterium in interpreting the text is Matthew 16:18-19. Now I have several questions:

1. Where in this text does it say that one of these "special powers" is the interpretation of written scripture?

2. Where does it say in this text that this is an office that will be handed down?

3. Where in the text are the nature of the keys described as the ability to open and shut the meaning of scripture?

The clarity of scripture is somethng that is either directly taught or insinuated from the beginning

And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

Deut 6:6-7 NASB

All the people of Israel were expected to understand the words of scripture and to be able to teach them "diligently".

The unfolding of Thy words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple.

Psalm 119:130 NASB

God's words are said to be understandable and applicable even by the most simple among us.

Jesus never excused the ignorance of the people to the fact that the scriptures were hard to understand. He constantly asked, "Have you not read?" he then held them accountable for not understanding what was written.

The implication of scripture is that people were expected to have understood its message, and held accountable for not understanding it. Given that spirit, can you show me texts that indicate that people cannot understand it apart from the aid of the magesterium.

Because I will agree with you that none of us can understand the scriptures on our own. But The only thing I find in the text is that in order to understand them correctly we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit, not the words of the magesterium.

And herein lies our problem. Catholics don't take a verse or two and say, "See, there it is, there's your proof". We take the Bible as a whole. We look at fully developed concepts, pulling together passages from throughout the Bible. This makes it more difficult to explain. But also gives our doctrines a more solid base. We also look to the early Church and how the Gospel was applied by those who heard it first hand rather than to more recent reformers for clues to interpretation.

Peace,

F

And when I tried to do that in the glory discussion in the Virgin Mary thread you took issue with me, saying if you had a choice between believing Jesus or me, you choose Jesus (not that I blame you for choosing Jesus

). I wanted to bring in the wider implications of the surrounding verses, and you did not seem open to that, or even discussing it

[jmwhalen]

Here's my problem. It takes a few seconds to write a question. It can take hours to research and write a thorough answer. Of course, every answer generates more questions. etc.....

I have right here in front of me several books that beautifully answer your questions. However, it would take days for me to fully develop and type out an answer for you. So I'm not sure how to approach this.

Not to mention there are 2 RC's debating with all the rest of you. And we are not theological experts, we're just doin' the best we can to present the teachings of the RCC. But we are not perfect. And I'm tired.

The only reason I've even had any significant time today is that I'm home from work with a cold/sore throat/fever.

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions one by one.

But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches and not simply trying to make Pax or I look like fools, PM me and I'll suggest a few books.

_______________________________

Fiosh:

I will wait for your response.

Re. your ".... But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches.....I'll suggest a few books.":

There is no need to "suggest a few books"-the RCC teachings are very easy to discover and read, and there is no need for some "expert", in a book or otherwise, to "spin" these teachings. They are written in "5th grade English" that are easily understood-no "secret code" is required.. Here is a sample of official, RCC's "doctrine"/pronouncements re. interpretation of the Holy Bible -I quote official RCC sources verbatum:

"In order to restrain petulant minds, the Council further decrees that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding to his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred scriptures to his own sense of them contrary to that which hath been held, and still held, by Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of sacred writ, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers, even though such interpretations should never be published. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the Ordinaries, and published according to law". -Council of Trent, session IV

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magesterium of the Church, that is, to the pope and to the bishops in communion with him". -Catechism

"The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living, teaching office of the Church". -The Documents of Vatican II

"It is for the bishops, 'with whom the apostolic doctrine resides', suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially of the New Testament, and in particular the Gospels. They do this by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. Thus the children of the Church can familiarize themselves safely and profitably with sacred Scriptures, and become steeped in their spirit". -Vatican Council II

"...if the sacred books are permitted everywhere....in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good"(emphasis mine). -Council of Trent, recorded in Decrees of the Council of Trent, Schroeder, 273-278

"Of all the advice we can offer your Holiness we must open your eyes well and use all possible force in the matter, namely to permit the reading of the gospel as little as possible in all the countries under your jurisdiction. Let the very little part of the gospel suffice which is usually read in mass, and let no one be permitted to read more. If one compares the teaching of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and oftener still, contrary(emphasis mine)" -Address given by the College of Cardinals to Pope Pius III, 1503

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

an ex "Roman" still awaiting my ex-communication papers

_______________

Fiosh-follow-up with my previous 2 questions: How were you able to "interpret" these "few books", i.e., how were you able to discern as to the truthfulness of them? Did you use the Holy Bible as the standard for judging their truthfulness? And by yourself? Or did the RCC approve them? Remember my first question?:

"Since you say that the individual(as does official RCC teaching) is not to interpret the Holy Bible, and since since you insist you are being biblical("That is Biblical"), please tell me where in scripture does the RCC/you cite for this teaching/doctrine, i.e., scripture, please, that says you are not to, and cannot interpret scripture?"

Can you not see that your argument(if I have it correct) is self-refuting, i.e., it "commits suicide"? I await your response to my 3 simple questions-no doctorate is needed to understand my questions, or answer them.

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

[Guest shiloh357]

The focus of my argument is the doctrines of the RCC, not the practices of a few seminaries. I don't doubt that is true. I personally know men who left the seminary because it was discovered that they are homosexual.

The key it that the "new Pope actually had to take action on this". And this is my point. The RCC has a built in mechanism to guard the truth---the papacy; the magisterium; the hierarchy of the Church. No other denomination has this.

[Personally, I do see a difference between having homosexual tendencies and being actively homosexual---but that's only my opinion.]

Had it been a halfway effective mechanism, it would have prevented all of these Pedophiles from molesting Children in the first place. It certainly would have prevented Bernard Law from covering for these men. So far, this "mechanism" hasn't been all that impressive.

None of this is related to Sola Scriptura, though. It is up to you and Pax to demonstrate that Scripture is not sufficient on its own as a moral guide for the believer. The onus is upon you to demonstrate that Scripture by itself would be deficient without Catholic tradition.

If the RCC had condoned pedophilia, then you would have a case.

Scripture is not "deficient" (straw man alert) - we are often deficient in our interpretation,

It is not a matter of claiming that the Catholic Church condones Pedophelia. I am sure they don't. That misses the point, though. My point is that because aberrant immorality exists in a NON Sola Scriptura environment, then you cannot use immorality among Protestant believers as a platform against Sola Scriptura. Immorality is present in every denomination, and yes, even the Catholic Church as you admit. It is present in both Sola and Non-Sola Scriptura environments. Therefore, that platform simply does not stand.

I did not say you claimed that Scripture is deficient, per se. Deficient might be the wrong word for me to use. The point is that you cannot argue this both ways. You cannot argue that we MUST have sacred tradition in addition to the Scriptures to arrive at the fullness of truth, and at the same time claim that the Bible is not deficient as a stand alone moral code. You cannot argue both. Pax is already waffling on His OP. He first claimed that he rejected the notion that the Bible contains all of the knowledge for salvation, now he claiming that he and I agree that the Bible does, indeed, contain all of the necessary truth. Is now trying to argue two different points. If the Bible DOES contain all of the truth relative to salvation as Pax has now conceded then traditions are unnecessary. Perhaps you and he need to have a conference and get on the same page. You are claiming that tradition and Scripture are inseparable, and Pax is claiming that we can know all we need for salvation apart from traditions. One of you is wrong. You need to get together and figure it out, otherwise, EricH and I have to debate two Catholics who don't even agree with each other.

[Fiosh]

Here's my problem. It takes a few seconds to write a question. It can take hours to research and write a thorough answer. Of course, every answer generates more questions. etc.....

I have right here in front of me several books that beautifully answer your questions. However, it would take days for me to fully develop and type out an answer for you. So I'm not sure how to approach this.

Not to mention there are 2 RC's debating with all the rest of you. And we are not theological experts, we're just doin' the best we can to present the teachings of the RCC. But we are not perfect. And I'm tired.

The only reason I've even had any significant time today is that I'm home from work with a cold/sore throat/fever.

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions one by one.

But if you are REALLY interested in learning what the RCC teaches and not simply trying to make Pax or I look like fools, PM me and I'll suggest a few books.

I understand. But Pax started this thread. None of us are perfect here, but this is not a Catholic site, so I would expect most of the posts not to support Catholic dogma. if you are interested in what my tradition teaches, let me know, and I can send you some material as well

Thanks for understanding.

Sure, send me your favorite title and I'll check it out.

peace,

F

[Fiosh]

To John W:

I am curious to know where you found that most interesting quote from the college of cardinals to Pope Pius III. I just spent some time searching (RCC, Protestant and even one atheist)web sites and can't locate anything like it.

Please cite your reference.

Thanks,

F