Sola Scriptora

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree. I think those synods and councils are a great help, and have been to keep our faith steady and true. The creeds, which were critical in fighting heresy, came out of those first councils and I think still works today. Also they are an excellent summary of what Christians believe, and what the bible claims about Christ.

However, they are indeed a help for us not a final authority.

I wanted to address what I think Fiosh said about protecting the truth contained in scripture, and the role of the magistratum in doing that. I think that is indeed a valid role for the magistratum. My denomination does that through our governing body, which in turns grants authority to who is ordained and maintains this through our historical confessions, which we believe follow Holy Scripture and are subservient to Holy Scripture. I think it is very dangerous for Christians to ignore their own history and importantly what others have believed about Holy Scripture. We are not alone, we are not our own authority, and we are not the first to read the bible. Paul instituted that Bishops, Deacons and Elders should be appointed for a reason. The first Christians brought all they owned and laid them at the feet of the Apostles for a reason. They accepted Church authority. It is not hard to look around the Protestant community and see what denominations are making an attempt to be subservient to the Word and which are not, there are varying degrees of adherence, but thank God for the bible so we can tell.

I just don't happen to believe we can claim one visible Church, as the ONLY authority in the Christian world, indeed all must be subservient to the bible.

For me the issue with church scandal be it molestation and cover-up in the Catholic Church or adultery and greed in the Protestant Churches is not that it happens, it does. The difference is that Protestants don't hold our leaders as having spiritual authority equal to holy scripture, directly from God Himself through Peter in some sort of succession. I think it is quite problematic to have a person say like Cardinal Law, who we know covered up molestation and unleashed these perverts on parents with small children, as a parent I can't stand to even look at that guy. Then we see the magistratum take him out of the country and give him a cushy position in Rome, and then claim that only these men in all of the Christian world can understand and interpret faith and morals? It hurts the faith. Cover-ups in particular show a lack of faith in Christ as these guys were more scared of legal human authority than they were of God's law.

Yes, it sickens me also. The very first time I read an article revealing the fact that priests had molested children I actually felt physically ill. It is an unimaginable breach of trust and a hideous destruction of innocence.

Still, despite evil men, the Holy Spirit has kept the Truth pure.

But it certainly makes it incredibly harder to convince the world of the truth. Just as when a TV evangelist is caught in some immoral act. The non-believers have a field day.

While it's true that I look to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition for truth, the Church and those in leadership roles are servants of that truth, not creators of it.

And that is why tying such things to Sola Scriptura simply doesn't work. Since we find the same aberrant sin in both Sola and NonSola Scripturian environments.

[Fiosh]

Fiosh's comments(underline is my emphasis):

"The issue is... what about those things that are not made clear in the Bible."

"It still comes down to this. If you believe "sola Scriptura", especially combined with no church structure, you must rely on your own interpretation of Scripture. And, friend, that just don't work. That much is painfully obvious."

"Well then I guess "you da man, SJ!" We shall all concede to your very own interpretation of Scripture. Wow, how arrogant is that! You think there are no Catholic, not to mention non-Catholic, scholars that speak Greek and Hebrew and will disagree with you? Look what is happening in Christian churches as they interpret for themselves. Actively homosexual bishops and clergy; approval of divorce; and what about women preachers---is that Biblical? No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church. You guys and your "straw man" lingo. Can we come up with a different term? I plainly stated that there is support in Scripture for "holding fast" to oral tradition. So far, you guys have 1, count 'em, 1 verse that you mis-use to prove sola Scriptura....."

"The church grows and spreads throughout the world. It is charged with guiding the faithful to a deeper understanding of the word and The Word."

"To once again emphasize something you said, the proof that this method (interpreting Scripture on our own) just doesn't work is the very splintering of the church and disagreement among sincere believers on major issues. Jesus created a structure for us within which we can rest secure in His truth. As it is so often said here, God is not a God of confusion, but a God of order. He gave us order. We in our pride sometimes refuse to accept it because it requires obedience and humility."

"And here is what I see the problem to be. When we believe that each of us can interpret the Bible on our own, we come up with very different doctrines. This is not to say that you should not read your Bible or look to it for inspiration. That is not at all what I mean. I do read my Bible daily. I do pray to the Holy Spirit to teach me His truth thru His word. I do look for guidance and comfort and a deeper relationship with God thru Scripture. Yes, yes, yes! What I don't do is to try to interpret basic doctrine. That is a matter for the Church leadership inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe that the RCC is "the" Church, I understand. But it is clear to me that Jesus established a Church leadership (the Apostles) who then annointed bishops, who met in council to make the rules. That is Biblical. Nowhere does it say we should all make up our own rules as we go along. The deposit of faith is passed down thru the generations by the Church. There is no question about that. Your question is simply---"Which Church" ?"

"You cannot explain away the fact that Protestants disagree over the interpretation of Scripture on major issues even if they use the same "rules" of exegesis.(no matter how many words you use) It's a fact, plain and simple. And it stems from a belief that the Bible stands alone.....with no "body" to assist in it's interpretation........But, that does not excuse the fact that due to our refusal to submit in obedience to the church established by Jesus, we cannot clearly access the truth He taught. Again, I understand if you disagree that the RCC is "The" Church. Ok. But there is no denying that Jesus established "a" Church; and that Church was given the charge to protect the deposit of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

"God is a God of order. He gave us a structure, and a method to pass on these responsibilities by "laying on of hands" and "annointing". Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom" and told him "feed my lambs; feed my sheep". Whether or not you accept the papacy---I wouldn't call this a "make believe authority". I take Jesus seriously when He appoints leaders. And I overcome my pride and submit in obedience to that authority.

It's that simple. There was a Church established by Jesus. If it is not the RCC then it has fallen apart...splintered. And it's time you began to build it back together."

________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________

Let me summarize what I understand is part of your "argument"(really assertions/assumptions)-correct me if I am wrong:

You non-Catholics(those who support sola scriptura) say the Bible alone is your final authority, but you disagree among yourselves about what the Bible in fact really teaches, apparently, citing the following, for example, as the basis for the need for an "infallible interpreter", "the Church"(which is the RCC, according to you):

-"Look what is happening in Christian churches as they interpret for themselves. Actively homosexual bishops and clergy; approval of divorce; and what about women preachers---is that Biblical? No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church."

-"....the proof that this method (interpreting Scripture on our own) just doesn't work is the very splintering of the church and disagreement among sincere believers on major issues. "

-"And here is what I see the problem to be. When we believe that each of us can interpret the Bible on our own, we come up with very different doctrines."

"You cannot explain away the fact that Protestants disagree over the interpretation of Scripture on major issues even if they use the same "rules" of exegesis.(no matter how many words you use) It's a fact, plain and simple. And it stems from a belief that the Bible stands alone.....with no "body" to assist in it's interpretation......"

That is, you point to the disagreements among groups(hundreds of different doctrines/denominations) that do not claim to have an infallible interpreter as evidence that individuals need a hierarchy(and an infallible hierarchy, according to official RCC teachings) to interpret the Bible for them, and that hierarchy, that "the Church", is the RCC(under "the Magesterium", according to the RCC), since you say:

-"No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church."

-"The church .... is charged with guiding the faithful to a deeper understanding of the word and The Word."

-"Jesus created a structure for us within which we can rest secure in His truth. As it is so often said here, God is not a God of confusion, but a God of order. He gave us order."

-"What I don't do is to try to interpret basic doctrine. That is a matter for the Church leadership inspired by the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe that the RCC is "the" Church, I understand. But it is clear to me that Jesus established a Church leadership (the Apostles) who then annointed bishops, who met in council to make the rules. That is Biblical. Nowhere does it say we should all make up our own rules as we go along. The deposit of faith is passed down thru the generations by the Church. There is no question about that. Your question is simply---"Which Church" ?"

-"And it stems from a belief that the Bible stands alone.....with no "body" to assist in it's interpretation........But, that does not excuse the fact that due to our refusal to submit in obedience to the church established by Jesus, we cannot clearly access the truth He taught. Again, I understand if you disagree that the RCC is "The" Church. Ok. But there is no denying that Jesus established "a" Church; and that Church was given the charge to protect the deposit of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit......... He gave us a structure, .....And I overcome my pride and submit in obedience to that authority."

And thus, you conclude, that, since we do not have a "consensus"(for lack of a better term) on doctrine(" the very splintering of the church and disagreement among sincere believers on major issues"), as witness by the differing doctrines amongst various "Christian" denominations, and the proliferation of hundreds of denominations, and that since many things "are not made clear in the Bible", we need a "structure", we need an "order", we need a "the Church", we need "the Church leadership", we need a " "body", we need an "authority to "make the rules", and the individual believer is not to interpret the Holy Bible for doctrine "on our own", since you say:

" ...you must rely on your own interpretation of Scripture. And, friend, that just don't work. That much is painfully obvious."

"We shall all concede to your very own interpretation of Scripture. Wow, how arrogant is that!"

"Look what is happening in Christian churches as they interpret for themselves. Actively homosexual bishops and clergy; approval of divorce; and what about women preachers---is that Biblical? No, we need some structure within which to interpret Scripture. That's why Jesus gave us the Church. "

".. the proof that this method (interpreting Scripture on our own) just doesn't work is the very splintering of the church and disagreement among sincere believers on major issues."

"And here is what I see the problem to be. When we believe that each of us can interpret the Bible on our own, we come up with very different doctrines. This is not to say that you should not read your Bible or look to it for inspiration. That is not at all what I mean. I do read my Bible daily. I do pray to the Holy Spirit to teach me His truth thru His word. I do look for guidance and comfort and a deeper relationship with God thru Scripture. Yes, yes, yes! What I don't do is to try to interpret basic doctrine. That is a matter for the Church leadership inspired by the Holy Spirit.

And indeed, this is official RCC teaching(I will cite official RCC documents if you need them), that is, the individual is not to(and cannot) interpret scripture on "my own", i.e., in layman's terms, that is the RCC's role("Magesterium"), and he/she must rely on their interpretation. The RCC(you)claims that their "demoninational hierarchy" must interpret scripture for the individual-the individual needs and must have an infallible teaching "magesterium", an "infallible" guidance to "understand" God's infallible revelation.

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?

My second question:

You say:

"But, that does not excuse the fact that due to our refusal to submit in obedience to the church established by Jesus, we cannot clearly access the truth He taught". Please interpret these scriptures that say, in "5th grade English", that we can access and understand the truth of the Holy Bible:

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our LEARNING(emphasis mine), that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15:4

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we MIGHT KNOW(emphasis mine) the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH(emphasis mine); comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor. 2:12-13

"For we write none other things unto you, that what ye read or ACKNOWLEDGE; and I trust ye shall ACKNOWLEDGE(emphasis mine) even to the end..." 2 Cor. 1:13

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth UNDERSTANDING UNTO THE SIMPLE(emphasis mine)." Psalms 119:160

In Christ,

John M. Whalen

Hi John, (I was going to type "Dear John"---but I didn't like the sound of that )

I'd like to borrow a paragraph from Shiloh, as he makes a lovely statement regarding the teaching authority given by Jesus to His Church:

"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. "

John 16: 12-13 "I have much more to tell you but you can not bear it now.But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.

This is part of the Last Supper discourses; Jesus makes this statement to His Apostles, His Church. He promises that the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to stray into error.

I Tim 3:15 "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth"

Again, it is "the Church", as a whole, not each individual

In I Tim 4, Paul gives Timothy explicit instructins to teach with authority, it is clear that Timothy has received infallible truth from the "church" and is commanded to teach the brothers---to interpret for them.

Hebrews 13: 17 "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you,..."

2 Peter 2: 20 "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.

My point is, there are those in leadership in the Church who have the role of teacher---to explain the Gospel message. Their words carry the weight of Christ's words.

Luke 10:16 (Jesus, to the 72 Disciples he appointed) "Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me."

Not all of us are equipped to develop doctrine:

"It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times,and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority....Its inspiriation does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation....the gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of inifallibility."

John Henry Newman

Even so, God does speak to our hearts thru His word by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we were all truly spiritual and not constantly at war with our carnal nature, then I suppose we could be trusted to always understand perfectly the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The verses you cite from Corinthians prove my point. These are the very people to who Paul says "I fed you milk not solid food,because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able even now".

So, obviously they were incapable of forming their own doctrine. Corinth is probably the best example of how NOT to "do" church.

(I would guess that you and I could both pray for wisdom and interpret I Cor 11:27-29 very differently)

I don't honestly see how Psalm 119:160 applies. I'm in agreement with you that the Word is true.

Peace of Christ be with you,

Fiosh

[Smalcald]

What a wonderful reply. THANK YOU. FYI My wife and I were asked to lead the Jr. High formation classes this year. We were required to attend a training class on child abuse within the church and in general. We watched a film where two convicted child molesters talked of the how and why. There lack of remorse was shocking. All parishes through out the Catholic church are required to have this training. Furthermore a criminal background check was also required. As far as I know the Catholic church is the only church going to such lengths to address the issue. I also know they have gone to great lengths to address the issue at the seminaries as well. Sorry, I do not know to what extent they are dealing with the Priest on hand, but as extensive as the response has been I am sure they are dealing with it at that level as well.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

Fiosh,

I know it sickens you, as it does all true Catholics. Molestation happens in all denominations and yes all of these things in both of our traditions make it much harder to do our work. ( It also happens in schools, boys scouts, brownies, YMCA

[Fiosh]

I agree. I think those synods and councils are a great help, and have been to keep our faith steady and true. The creeds, which were critical in fighting heresy, came out of those first councils and I think still works today. Also they are an excellent summary of what Christians believe, and what the bible claims about Christ.

However, they are indeed a help for us not a final authority.

I wanted to address what I think Fiosh said about protecting the truth contained in scripture, and the role of the magistratum in doing that. I think that is indeed a valid role for the magistratum. My denomination does that through our governing body, which in turns grants authority to who is ordained and maintains this through our historical confessions, which we believe follow Holy Scripture and are subservient to Holy Scripture. I think it is very dangerous for Christians to ignore their own history and importantly what others have believed about Holy Scripture. We are not alone, we are not our own authority, and we are not the first to read the bible. Paul instituted that Bishops, Deacons and Elders should be appointed for a reason. The first Christians brought all they owned and laid them at the feet of the Apostles for a reason. They accepted Church authority. It is not hard to look around the Protestant community and see what denominations are making an attempt to be subservient to the Word and which are not, there are varying degrees of adherence, but thank God for the bible so we can tell.

I just don't happen to believe we can claim one visible Church, as the ONLY authority in the Christian world, indeed all must be subservient to the bible.

For me the issue with church scandal be it molestation and cover-up in the Catholic Church or adultery and greed in the Protestant Churches is not that it happens, it does. The difference is that Protestants don't hold our leaders as having spiritual authority equal to holy scripture, directly from God Himself through Peter in some sort of succession. I think it is quite problematic to have a person say like Cardinal Law, who we know covered up molestation and unleashed these perverts on parents with small children, as a parent I can't stand to even look at that guy. Then we see the magistratum take him out of the country and give him a cushy position in Rome, and then claim that only these men in all of the Christian world can understand and interpret faith and morals? It hurts the faith. Cover-ups in particular show a lack of faith in Christ as these guys were more scared of legal human authority than they were of God's law.

Yes, it sickens me also. The very first time I read an article revealing the fact that priests had molested children I actually felt physically ill. It is an unimaginable breach of trust and a hideous destruction of innocence.

Still, despite evil men, the Holy Spirit has kept the Truth pure.

But it certainly makes it incredibly harder to convince the world of the truth. Just as when a TV evangelist is caught in some immoral act. The non-believers have a field day.

While it's true that I look to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition for truth, the Church and those in leadership roles are servants of that truth, not creators of it.

And that is why tying such things to Sola Scriptura simply doesn't work. Since we find the same aberrant sin in both Sola and NonSola Scripturian environments.

I must not be making my point very clearly. And perhaps "homosexual clergy" is a bad example.

My point, in it's purest form is this:

2 churches that hold to Sola Scriptura can read the same Bible yet hold 2 different doctrines.

[Fiosh]

What a wonderful reply. THANK YOU. FYI My wife and I were asked to lead the Jr. High formation classes this year. We were required to attend a training class on child abuse within the church and in general. We watched a film where two convicted child molesters talked of the how and why. There lack of remorse was shocking. All parishes through out the Catholic church are required to have this training. Furthermore a criminal background check was also required. As far as I know the Catholic church is the only church going to such lengths to address the issue. I also know they have gone to great lengths to address the issue at the seminaries as well. Sorry, I do not know to what extent they are dealing with the Priest on hand, but as extensive as the response has been I am sure they are dealing with it at that level as well.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

Fiosh,

I know it sickens you, as it does all true Catholics. Molestation happens in all denominations and yes all of these things in both of our traditions make it much harder to do our work. ( It also happens in schools, boys scouts, brownies, YMCA

[Fiosh]

The biggest problem with the "Bible Alone" stance is the lack of support to actually accept the Bible as inspired in the first place.

[EricH]

The biggest problem with the "Bible Alone" stance is the lack of support to actually accept the Bible as inspired in the first place.

Do you mean because a majority of people don't see the Bible as inspired that weakens the doctrine?

[Fiosh]

The biggest problem with the "Bible Alone" stance is the lack of support to actually accept the Bible as inspired in the first place.

Do you mean because a majority of people don't see the Bible as inspired that weakens the doctrine?

No. And, believe me I'm not saying that I AT ALL doubt that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

But HOW do YOU know that? (not shouting, only emphasizing)

[yomotalking]

No, lol, I'm not related to Gerioke.

lol

I think I've learnt it from him!

LOL

Not really, just kidding!

I'm sure he would be honored to hear you say that!

[EricH]

The biggest problem with the "Bible Alone" stance is the lack of support to actually accept the Bible as inspired in the first place.

Do you mean because a majority of people don't see the Bible as inspired that weakens the doctrine?

No. And, believe me I'm not saying that I AT ALL doubt that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

But HOW do YOU know that? (not shouting, only emphasizing)

The real question you are asking is, "How do we know the Bible came from God?" Here is why I have landed where I have:

1. The external evidence says that the Bible is an historical book that can be trusted.

* The number of of extant manuscripts

* The short amount of time between the writing of the originals, and the first copies (in some cases less than 70 years)

* The extreme care with which the Scriptures (OT in this case) were replicated

- Each scroll had to contain a specified number of columns, all equal throughout the entire book

- Each column had to be not less than 48 lines and no more than 60 lines

- Each column's width had to be 30 letters

- The scribe had to use special black ink

- The space between each consonant had to be the size of a thread

- The scribe could not copy from memory

- The scribe had to wear full Jewish dress

- The scribe had to use a fresh pen to write the sacred name of God

- The scribe could only copy letter by letter, not word for word

- They counted the number of times each letter of the alphabet occured in the original. If the copy was off, it was

destroyed

- The scribe knew the middle letter of the Pantateuch, and of the entire OT. After copying the scroll, they counted

forward and backwards to the middle letter. If it was off, they destroyed the copy.

* The confirmation of names, places, and dates by arrchaeology

2. The internal evidence says the Bible came from God

* The amazing consistency and agreement throughout a book that was written over a period of 1500 years in various

cultural settings. It was written by over 40 authors from various backgrounds and stations in life. Yet it speaks with

amazing agreement and authority on hundreds of controversial topics. Yet is has one central story. It tells of God's

act to repair a relationship that was broken with man-kind through Jesus Christ

3. The personal evidence in people's lives indicates that the Bible came from God

* Best selling book of all time

* First book to be printed on a press

* Millions of lives have been changed by the truth contained in the holy writ

4. Jesus Himself claimed the Bible came from God

* He recognized the Holy Spirit to be the author (Matthew 22:43-44)

* He quoted scripture as if it was the ultimate authority (Matthew 22:29)

* He proclaimed its uniqueness (Matthew 5:18, John 10:35)

* He called it "the word of God" (Mark 7:13)

* He believed the people, places, and stories in the Bible were real

- Prophets (Matthew 22:40)

- Noah (Luke 17:26)

- Adam and Eve ( Matthew 19:4)

- Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15)

- Jonah Matthew (12:40)

5. Jesus recognized the Old testament Canon (Luke 24:44)

6. Peter recognized part of the NT Cannon (2 Peter 3:16)

7. Paul recognized the equal inspiration of the Old and New Testaments in a singe verse (1 Timothy 5:18)

(note: in this passage Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7) calling them both Scripture

8. The books that were included in the NT canon were included based on the following criteria

* They contained the authority of one of the NT Apostles

* They did not teach anything contrary to what had already been revealed

* They had been life changing in their impact on the life of the church

9. The assurance we have that God will keep His word (Isaiah 40:8)

10. The assurance we have on how God communicated His word to the writers (2 Peter 1:21)

I first came to believe the Bible was accurate based on the Historical eveidence. Once I believed it was accurate (i.e. that it contained historical accounts of what was said) I knew I could trust what it reported to be an accurate account. Once I read the accurate account, I came to see that Jesus, and the text itself claimed certain things for itself, and for Jesus. Once I understood the claims, I had to decide if what they were claiming, were true or false. Jesus' claims regarding scripture were not unique. They were echoed over a period of 1500 years by numersous writers. I made a faith decision to believe what the text claimed regarding Jesus, and what it said regarding itself.

So, ultimately it comes down to the question, are we going to believe what the text claims for itself, and what Jesus claimed for it. There is historic and circumstantial support for its claims, but these are not sufficient in themselves. We must decide if we are going to believe what the text claims.

Once we believe that, everything else we believe must be conditioned by what they teach. If they claim for themselves to be the ultimate authority, then we must look to them for how we are to handle and obey that ultimate authority.