Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sola Scriptura

AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 2:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
is heresy.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Dogknox
Posts: 5,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 4:22:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 2:02:11 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
is heresy.

I reply.. Scriptures PROVE; "Scriptures Alone is a lie!"
Acts 17:11 tells us "The Bereans were More noble because they accepted Paul'/Churches teaching!"
Scriptures tell us.. The people of Thessalonica are less noble because they believe in "Scriptures Alone" these people refuse to listen to TEACHINGS!

Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The Bereans are more noble because they reject Scriptures ALONE!
They listen to the TEACHING of Church even then they are not told to listen.. The Bereans do NOT have written in their Old Testament; "Listen to the Church" as we have written in our "New Testament"!

We have written: "Listen to the Church" in our New Testament, we have no excuse when we stand in front of Jesus and he asks us; "Why did you reject my Church"?!
Those people that believe the unscriptural; "Scriptures are all we need" are less then "Less Noble" they are "NOT noble" they are less then those of Thessalonica having NO excuse for rejecting Jesus' Church!

AlwaysMoreThanYou The Bereans received the message with great eagerness!!!

Dogknox
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 5:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 4:22:50 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/25/2012 2:02:11 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
is heresy.

I reply.. Scriptures PROVE; "Scriptures Alone is a lie!"
Acts 17:11 tells us "The Bereans were More noble because they accepted Paul'/Churches teaching!"
Scriptures tell us.. The people of Thessalonica are less noble because they believe in "Scriptures Alone" these people refuse to listen to TEACHINGS!

Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The Bereans are more noble because they reject Scriptures ALONE!
They listen to the TEACHING of Church even then they are not told to listen.. The Bereans do NOT have written in their Old Testament; "Listen to the Church" as we have written in our "New Testament"!

We have written: "Listen to the Church" in our New Testament, we have no excuse when we stand in front of Jesus and he asks us; "Why did you reject my Church"?!
Those people that believe the unscriptural; "Scriptures are all we need" are less then "Less Noble" they are "NOT noble" they are less then those of Thessalonica having NO excuse for rejecting Jesus' Church!

AlwaysMoreThanYou The Bereans received the message with great eagerness!!!

Dogknox

The Bereans were listening to the teachings of Paul, and checking Scripture to verify. How could they verify through Scripture if he was teaching anything that wasn't in Scripture??
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 8:18:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:07:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 8:18:10 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

I know the textbook definition, but I was hoping for someone to explain it in terms of practicality.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:15:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 8:18:10 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

I, of course, do not hold to this, but this is a pretty standard definition of Sola Scriptura.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:27:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 5:23:27 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/25/2012 4:22:50 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/25/2012 2:02:11 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
is heresy.

I reply.. Scriptures PROVE; "Scriptures Alone is a lie!"
Acts 17:11 tells us "The Bereans were More noble because they accepted Paul'/Churches teaching!"
Scriptures tell us.. The people of Thessalonica are less noble because they believe in "Scriptures Alone" these people refuse to listen to TEACHINGS!

Acts 17:11
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The Bereans are more noble because they reject Scriptures ALONE!
They listen to the TEACHING of Church even then they are not told to listen.. The Bereans do NOT have written in their Old Testament; "Listen to the Church" as we have written in our "New Testament"!

We have written: "Listen to the Church" in our New Testament, we have no excuse when we stand in front of Jesus and he asks us; "Why did you reject my Church"?!
Those people that believe the unscriptural; "Scriptures are all we need" are less then "Less Noble" they are "NOT noble" they are less then those of Thessalonica having NO excuse for rejecting Jesus' Church!

AlwaysMoreThanYou The Bereans received the message with great eagerness!!!

Dogknox

The Bereans were listening to the teachings of Paul, and checking Scripture to verify. How could they verify through Scripture if he was teaching anything that wasn't in Scripture??

Hello medic0506 You asked.. How could they verify through Scripture if he was teaching anything that wasn't in Scripture??

I reply: SIMPLY... Paul was teaching "Christ Resurrected"!!
Acts 17:2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah," he said.

medic0506 The Bereans had only the; "OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures" Christ Resurrected is NOT found in the Old Testament!

" Christ Resurrected is NOT found in the Old Testament!
medic0506 NOT in a million years would the Bereans arrive at the Truth "Christ Resurrected" without CHURCH TEACHING: "Christ Resurrected"!
THINK: Two Thousand years after Jesus the Jews still do not believe in "Christ Resurrected" all they have is their "OLD TESTAMENT!" Proving they need a TEACHER to arrive at TRUTH!!!!!!
medic0506 2000 years of Old Testament and the Jews still do NOT believe in Christ Resurrected! They could check scriptures till the cows come home, without CHURCH the Bereans would be lost!

medic0506 The Bereans NEEDED a TEACHER to arrive at the truth!
The Bereans accepted Christ Resurrected because Paul TAUGHT "Christ Resurrected"!

medic0506 The people of Thessalonica outright refused to listen to Paul these people believed in "Scriptures Alone!"

The people of Thessalonica never found the truth because they believed in "Scriptures ALONE!"

"Christ Resurrected is NOT found in the Old Testament!

The Bereans were willing to step out and accept a TEACHING NOT found in their OLD Testament scriptures thus they were the "More Noble"!

Read it again...
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness

Do you see it??? They received the message with great eagerness...
"RECEIVED THE MESSAGE".. The MESSAGE was Paul' TEACHING!!!

AND >>>> and examined the Scriptures!!!
And: "ALSO" or "PLUS" scriptures, not scriptures ALONE!!!

medic0506 The people of Thessalonican believed in scriptures ALONE!! They were unwilling to give Paul a chance!

BUT....
medic0506 But the people of Thessalonican have an excuse!! When they stand in front of Jesus they can say "We did not know we were to listen to the Church"! They do not have written "Listen to the Church" in their OLD TESTAMENT Scriptures! YOU DO!!!!
You will have no excuse!

THINK... The TEACHING of "Scriptures ALONE" was first taught sixteen hundred years AFTER Jesus.. it is NOT found in the scriptures so the teaching is a TRADITION!! The TEACHING started with the "De-Formers", they TAUGHT "we don't need no stinking church all we need is the scriptures"!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:36:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/25/2012 8:18:10 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

I know the textbook definition, but I was hoping for someone to explain it in terms of practicality.

FACT: The idea of "Scriptures ALONE" first appeared sixteen Hundred years AFTER Jesus! It is NOT found in the scriptures thus it is a TRADITION started by men!!!

It first appeared like this.. "We don't need no church, all we need is the scriptures!"

The Scriptures say.. "Listen to the Church"!
The Scriptures say.. "The CHURCH is the Pillar and the Foundation of truth"!
The Scriptures say "The Scriptures are USEFUL but not ALONE used to teach, rebuke, train or correct!"
The Scriptures say "The CHURCH is Jesus' Body"!

So much for...
Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.


"Scripture ALONE" teaching was ADDED!!!
"Scripture ALONE" may NOT be deduced from scriptures!
"Scripture ALONE" is a tradition of men.

Dogknox
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:40:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:53 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/25/2012 8:18:10 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.

I know the textbook definition, but I was hoping for someone to explain it in terms of practicality.

Pretty hard to do, since sola scriptura has proven to be so impractical.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joshh_03
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:48:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola Scriptura means 'Scripture alone'. It means the Bible is your final authority on all things. To quote: Sola Scriptura says, "the Bible is the only authority for Christians" faith and practice." It's one of the five sola's by Martin Luther.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sola scriptura is self-refuting. It is sola ego
By Bob Sungenis

Every doctrine one believes is based on the authority one accepts. I decided to test the pet theory of [sola scriptura] by asking numerous Protestant scholars and pastors to help me find sola scriptura in the Bible. By this point, I wasn't too surprised to find that none was able to provide a convincing answer.

They pointed to verses that spoke of the veracity and inerrancy of the Bible, but could show none that explicitly taught that Scripture is our sole, formally sufficient authority. Interestingly, some of these Protestants were candid enough to admit that the Bible nowhere taught sola scriptura , but they compensated for this curious lacuna by saying the Bible doesn't have to teach sola scriptura in order for the doctrine to be true. But I could see that this position was utterly untenable. For if sola scriptura"the idea that the Bible is formally sufficient for Christians"is not taught in the Bible, sola scriptura is a false and self-refuting proposition.

As I studied Scripture in the light of the Catholic materials I had been sent, I began to see that the Bible in fact points to the Church as being the final arbiter of truth in all spiritual matters (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15; Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18; Luke 10:16).

This made sense, especially on a practical level. Since only an entity with the ability to observe and correctly interpret information can act as an authority, I saw that the Bible, though it contains God-breathed revelation, cannot act as a final "authority" since it is dependent on thinking personalities to observe what it says and, more importantly, interpret what it means. I also saw that the Bible warns us that it contains difficult and confusing information which is capable of (if not prone to) being twisted into all sorts of fanciful and false interpretations (2 Peter 3:16).

During my years of wandering through the theological wilderness of Protestantism, I always knew that something was wrong with it, but I just couldn't put my finger on it. Now I was beginning to put the pieces of the puzzle together. The more I thought about it the more I began to see that the theory of sola scriptura had done untold damage to Christendom. The most obvious evidence of this damage was Protestanism itself: a huge mass of conflicting, bickering denominations, causing, by its very nature of "protest" and "defiance," an endless ; proliferation of chaos and controversy.

My seventeen-year experience with Protestant biblical scholars had made one thing very clear to me: Sola scriptura is a euphemism for "sola ego."

What I mean is that every Protestant has his own interpretation of what Scripture says and, of course, he believes that his interpretation is superior to everyone else's. Each advances his own view, assuming (if not actually claiming) that the Holy Spirit has personally led him to that interpretation.

As a Protestant I greatly admired Martin Luther and John Calvin for their boldness to interpret the Bible for themselves. Now I was faced with the probability that these heroes of mine were very intelligent but also very prideful and rebellious men. After I had read a few scholarly biographies of these two reformers I realized that much about their personal lives was never told to us in seminary. These insights caused me to take an even more skeptical look at the Reformers and the Reformation as a whole. I realize that there are problems within the Catholic Church. In every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful, and heretical members.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:23:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I realize that there are problems within the Catholic Church. In every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful, and heretical members.

Your alleged preferred Story book states that ' a good tree can not produce evil fruit! '.

The fact even you as a catholic admit it has produced evil fruit throughout every age, confirms that in your estimation catholicism is NOT a Good Tree! (metaph' = ideology!)

So why do you remain a malignant sinner in a malignant sinful ' rotten fruit producing ' organisation?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:24:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:23:30 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I realize that there are problems within the Catholic Church. In every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful, and heretical members.

Your alleged preferred Story book states that ' a good tree can not produce evil fruit! '.

The fact even you as a catholic admit it has produced evil fruit throughout every age, confirms that in your estimation catholicism is NOT a Good Tree! (metaph' = ideology!)

So why do you remain a malignant sinner in a malignant sinful ' rotten fruit producing ' organisation?

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with Dr. Sungenis.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:26:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:24:18 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:23:30 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I realize that there are problems within the Catholic Church. In every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful, and heretical members.

Your alleged preferred Story book states that ' a good tree can not produce evil fruit! '.

The fact even you as a catholic admit it has produced evil fruit throughout every age, confirms that in your estimation catholicism is NOT a Good Tree! (metaph' = ideology!)

So why do you remain a malignant sinner in a malignant sinful ' rotten fruit producing ' organisation?

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with Dr. Sungenis.

Why?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:27:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:26:56 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:24:18 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:23:30 AM, Composer wrote:
At 12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I realize that there are problems within the Catholic Church. In every age, the Church has had to endure the blight of worldly, sinful, and heretical members.

Your alleged preferred Story book states that ' a good tree can not produce evil fruit! '.

The fact even you as a catholic admit it has produced evil fruit throughout every age, confirms that in your estimation catholicism is NOT a Good Tree! (metaph' = ideology!)

So why do you remain a malignant sinner in a malignant sinful ' rotten fruit producing ' organisation?

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with Dr. Sungenis.

Why?

Because he wrote it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:39:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:03:34 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
Sola scriptura is self-refuting. It is sola ego
By Bob Sungenis
The more I thought about it the more I began to see that the theory of sola scriptura had done untold damage to Christendom. The most obvious evidence of this damage was Protestanism itself: a huge mass of conflicting, bickering denominations, causing, by its very nature of "protest" and "defiance," an endless ; proliferation of chaos and controversy.

I think this is one of the best points that can be made against Sola Scriptura. The Scriptural chaos that directly results from rejecting interpretive authority is warned against in the quote from my signature -- it's a passage that directly calls for unity in Christ's Church.

"If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing." - Philippians 2:1 - 2
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 11:17:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:48:26 AM, joshh_03 wrote:
At 12/25/2012 7:13:50 PM, stubs wrote:
Can someone give me an actual definition of Sola Scriptura? Cause I see people on here debating it all the time haha

Sola Scriptura means 'Scripture alone'. It means the Bible is your final authority on all things. To quote: Sola Scriptura says, "the Bible is the only authority for Christians" faith and practice." It's one of the five sola's by Martin Luther.

stubs The Teaching TRADITION of Sola Scriptura is NOT PRACTICAL!!
It takes "CHURCH out of the salvation of men's souls!
stubs Scriptures tell you.. "The CHURCH" is the body of Jesus! Taking "CHURCH" away from teaching, rebuking, training or correcting is taking JESUS away!

You asked.. I know the textbook definition, but I was hoping for someone to explain it in terms of practicality.
stubs You are asking for someone to explain a lie by making it sound true!!!!

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Scriptures are USEFUL for TEACHING!
Scriptures are USEFUL for REBUKING!
Scriptures are USEFUL for CORRECTING!
Scriptures are USEFUL for TRAINING!
They are not alone used...
The CHURCH; Teaches!
The CHURCH; Rebukes!
The CHURCH; Corrects!
The CHURCH; Trains!
Scriptures CAN'T teach, rebuke, correct or train.... Books don't teach, rebuke, correct or train teachers do they use books!
The Church uses the scriptures, the scriptures are useful!!

Dogknox
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There seems to be something circular in Robert Sungenis' argument. He said the Bible can't serve as a final authority because it is subject to misinterpretation, and we need some authority to correctly interpret it. But then how does he figure out who has this authority if anybody? Well, he gets that from the Bible. But how does he know he's interpreting the Bible correctly? Presumably because the Catholic church says so. So this is a big circular argument. He thinks the Catholic church is the interpretive authority for the Bible. And he knows this because of how he interprets the Bible. And he knows his interpretation is correct because that's how the Catholic church interprets those passages. And he knows the Catholic church's interpretation is correct because they have interpretive authority, etc.

Sungenis' thinks that sola scriptura reduces to sola ego because it ultimately boils down to the individual's authority to interpret the Bible. But I don't see how he escapes the same problem. If we need an authoritative interpreter before we can properly understand the Bible, then how are we going to decide who has this authority? How are we going to adjudicate between the president of the LDS church, the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church? Each of them uses the Bible to support their own legitimacy. We can't very well just assume one of their interpretations is correct on their own authority, because that would beg the question of which of them has interpretive authority to begin with. It seems like the only way we can decide is if we are able to use our own reasoning and interpretive ability to figure it out, which is the very thing each one of them denies that we can do.

We have nothing but our own cognitive faculties to help us figure out true from false. There's no escaping it. For any entity, whether the Bible, the church, or whatever, that you attribute authority to, you first have to attribute some authority to yourself in order to determine which entity has authority. There's no escaping this conundrum.

Admittedly, there is a lot in the Bible that is hard to understand and easy to misinterpret. But the same thing seems to be true of the Catholic church. If you read the Council of Trent, it appears as if all protestants are doomed to hell. But modern Catholics don't seems to believe that. So apparently, we need somebody to interpret the interpreter. What authority are we going to appeal to in order to figure out what the Catholic church actually teaches?

I know a lot of Catholics personally, and in spite of Catholics chiding protestants for their lack of unity, there is a great deal if disunity in the Catholic church. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a lot more unity in their church than Catholics have in theirs. And the reason is because of the authority structure of the Jehovah's Witnesses. So yeah, an authority structure can create unity, but clearly unity by itself is not necessarily a good thing. You can have unity in error.

Sungenis also uses the 'us vs. them' fallacy. If you draw a circle around the Catholic church, and call everything on the inside 'us' and everything on the outside 'them,' then of course it appears that there is more diversity among 'them' than there is among 'us.' But that's arbitrary since you could draw the circle around any church or organization and say the exact same thing. If you draw a circle around reformed baptist churches, call them 'us' and everybody outside 'them,' then the Catholic church is just one among many other churches, and there is far more diversity among 'them' than among 'us.'

Sungenis also commits the ad hominem fallacy when he says the shady character of Martin Luther and John Calvin causes him to have doubts about their teachings. You have to look at their arguments to judge their teachings. If character is relevant, then I would choose Martin Luther and John Calvin any day over the majority of Catholic popes, especially during the middle ages and renaissance. There were many people in the Catholic church prior to the reformation who knew of how corrupt the Catholic church had become.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:27:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:36:49 PM, philochristos wrote:
There seems to be something circular in Robert Sungenis' argument. He said the Bible can't serve as a final authority because it is subject to misinterpretation, and we need some authority to correctly interpret it. But then how does he figure out who has this authority if anybody? Well, he gets that from the Bible. But how does he know he's interpreting the Bible correctly? Presumably because the Catholic church says so. So this is a big circular argument. He thinks the Catholic church is the interpretive authority for the Bible. And he knows this because of how he interprets the Bible. And he knows his interpretation is correct because that's how the Catholic church interprets those passages. And he knows the Catholic church's interpretation is correct because they have interpretive authority, etc.

I don't think his reasons for believing in the Catholic Church come solely from the Bible, although I can see why the article may have made it seem that way.

Sungenis' thinks that sola scriptura reduces to sola ego because it ultimately boils down to the individual's authority to interpret the Bible. But I don't see how he escapes the same problem. If we need an authoritative interpreter before we can properly understand the Bible, then how are we going to decide who has this authority? How are we going to adjudicate between the president of the LDS church, the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the teaching magisterium of the Catholic church?

The Catholic Church is the only one that has existed since Jesus. Personally, I find that pretty convincing.

Each of them uses the Bible to support their own legitimacy.

The LDS Church probably uses more than the Bible. Not sure about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

We can't very well just assume one of their interpretations is correct on their own authority, because that would beg the question of which of them has interpretive authority to begin with. It seems like the only way we can decide is if we are able to use our own reasoning and interpretive ability to figure it out, which is the very thing each one of them denies that we can do.

The Catholic Church doesn't deny that.

We have nothing but our own cognitive faculties to help us figure out true from false. There's no escaping it. For any entity, whether the Bible, the church, or whatever, that you attribute authority to, you first have to attribute some authority to yourself in order to determine which entity has authority. There's no escaping this conundrum.

That's kind of true. I mostly posted that to spice up the thread.

Admittedly, there is a lot in the Bible that is hard to understand and easy to misinterpret. But the same thing seems to be true of the Catholic church. If you read the Council of Trent, it appears as if all protestants are doomed to hell. But modern Catholics don't seems to believe that. So apparently, we need somebody to interpret the interpreter. What authority are we going to appeal to in order to figure out what the Catholic church actually teaches?

I think it's pretty clear what the Catholic Church teaches, although a lot of Catholics don't bother trying to find out. If you have living teachers who can teach you, they can make it pretty clear what exactly is the case.

With regards to the Council of Trent, pretty much all protestants are doomed to hell, unfortunately.

I know a lot of Catholics personally, and in spite of Catholics chiding protestants for their lack of unity, there is a great deal if disunity in the Catholic church. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a lot more unity in their church than Catholics have in theirs. And the reason is because of the authority structure of the Jehovah's Witnesses. So yeah, an authority structure can create unity, but clearly unity by itself is not necessarily a good thing. You can have unity in error.

There is some disunity in the Catholic Church, which is why we have to start anathemizing people again. However, most Catholics are in union with one belief.

Sungenis also uses the 'us vs. them' fallacy. If you draw a circle around the Catholic church, and call everything on the inside 'us' and everything on the outside 'them,' then of course it appears that there is more diversity among 'them' than there is among 'us.' But that's arbitrary since you could draw the circle around any church or organization and say the exact same thing. If you draw a circle around reformed baptist churches, call them 'us' and everybody outside 'them,' then the Catholic church is just one among many other churches, and there is far more diversity among 'them' than among 'us.'

If you draw a circle around everyone who believes in the Church, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scriptures, you've got a lot more unity amongst them then amongst the people who believe in sola scriptura.

You'd probably be left with the Orthodox and the Catholics, whose beliefs are almost uniform on pretty much everything.

Sungenis also commits the ad hominem fallacy when he says the shady character of Martin Luther and John Calvin causes him to have doubts about their teachings. You have to look at their arguments to judge their teachings. If character is relevant, then I would choose Martin Luther and John Calvin any day over the majority of Catholic popes, especially during the middle ages and renaissance. There were many people in the Catholic church prior to the reformation who knew of how corrupt the Catholic church had become.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:15:51 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 1:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

I, of course, do not hold to this, but this is a pretty standard definition of Sola Scriptura.

Sorry for being naive on the subject but if I kind of put my opinions on this could someone tell me if I believe it haha? the "all things necessary for [...] life" part trips me up. Because obviously there are things not in the bible that are true. For example, mathematical truths. But I do think it is possible for someone to only have a bible, never talk to a pastor, priest, or even any other Christian, and still be saved. I don't even think someone needs to see a bible to be saved. For example, personal divine revelation.

Would my position be solo scriptura or nah?

Thanks for anyone who reads this
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:27:46 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The Catholic Church is the only one that has existed since Jesus. Personally, I find that pretty convincing.


Have you done a debate on that yet? If you have could you post a link? I spent a good amount of time this past semester studying the early church and I would be willing to contend that point. I also don't think it logically follows that since it was around since Jesus that it teaches the closest to what Jesus did.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:11:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:09:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:27:46 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The Catholic Church is the only one that has existed since Jesus. Personally, I find that pretty convincing.

Have you done a debate on that yet? If you have could you post a link? I spent a good amount of time this past semester studying the early church and I would be willing to contend that point. I also don't think it logically follows that since it was around since Jesus that it teaches the closest to what Jesus did.

Haven't. I'll debate it if you want; nothing to do over break.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:27:46 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
I don't think his reasons for believing in the Catholic Church come solely from the Bible, although I can see why the article may have made it seem that way.

If it's even partially based on the Bible, then it's partially circular reasoning, and that part of the case can't work. But how does he come to the conclusion that there even is an interpretive authority? Where does he get the idea that any organization has the authority that he thinks the Catholic church has? He either gets that from the Catholic church (which is viciously circular reasoning), or he gets it from the Bible. If he gets it from the Bible, then either he's relying on the Catholic church's interpretation of those verses (which again is circular reasoning), or else he's relying on his own ability to read and understand the Bible, in which case he undermine's his whole case that we need an interpretive authority before we can reliably interpret the Bible.

The Catholic Church is the only one that has existed since Jesus. Personally, I find that pretty convincing.

But the LDS Church thinks that's a good reason to reject the Catholic Church since the Bible says there will be a falling away (2 Thessalonians 2:3), which they interpret to mean that the true church disappeared from the world. Since the true church disappeared from the world, but the Catholic church remained, it follows that the Catholic church is not the true church. How are you going to dispute their interpretation without either (1) relying on the authority of the Catholic church, which begs the question, or (2) relying on your own ability to interpret the Bible, which undermines Sungenis' case for a need for an authoritative interpreter?

Each of them uses the Bible to support their own legitimacy.

The LDS Church probably uses more than the Bible. Not sure about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

None of them make their case apart from the Bible, though, so the only way to adjudicate between them is to be able to interpret the Bible apart from any of them, which is the very thing Sungenis criticizes protestants for doing.

We can't very well just assume one of their interpretations is correct on their own authority, because that would beg the question of which of them has interpretive authority to begin with. It seems like the only way we can decide is if we are able to use our own reasoning and interpretive ability to figure it out, which is the very thing each one of them denies that we can do.

The Catholic Church doesn't deny that.

If the Catholic church does not deny that we can use our own reasoning and interpretive ability to figure out what the Bible means, then Sungenis' argument against the practicality of sola scriptura is fallacious. His argument is that the Bible "contains difficult and confusing information which is capable of (if not prone to) being twisted into all sorts of fanciful and false interpretations," and that's why we need "an entity with the ability to observe and correctly interpret information."

We have nothing but our own cognitive faculties to help us figure out true from false. There's no escaping it. For any entity, whether the Bible, the church, or whatever, that you attribute authority to, you first have to attribute some authority to yourself in order to determine which entity has authority. There's no escaping this conundrum.

That's kind of true. I mostly posted that to spice up the thread.

So you don't actually agree with Sungenis? I guess there's no point in you and I arguing then. LOL

I think it's pretty clear what the Catholic Church teaches, although a lot of Catholics don't bother trying to find out. If you have living teachers who can teach you, they can make it pretty clear what exactly is the case.

I think it's pretty clear what the Bible teaches in most cases, too. But my point is that even the athoritative pronouncements of the Catholic church are subject to interpretation. Sungenis thinks he has solved the problem of Biblical interpretation by appealing to an authoritative interpreter, but all he has done is postpone the problem because the interpreter also needs to be interpreted. In fact, you cannot escape interpretation no matter how many authorities you put between yourself and the Bible. Interpretation is just the process of extracting meaning from words. You are interpreting my words as you read this, and it's possible that you are misunderstanding me. It's possible that I misunderstanding Catholics. It's possible that Catholics misunderstand Catholics. So the fact that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation is not solved by supposing that there is an interpretive authority. We are all in the same boat.

With regards to the Council of Trent, pretty much all protestants are doomed to hell, unfortunately.

But that isn't what the Catholic church teaches today, is it? If it is, then there's a teaching of the Catholic church that most Catholics don't seem to think is true.

There is some disunity in the Catholic Church, which is why we have to start anathemizing people again. However, most Catholics are in union with one belief.

I honestly doubt that. I even heard a sermon once in a Catholic church where the priest was saying that about 70% of Catholics don't even know what transubstantiation is, much less believe in it, which he thought was a travesty because it's an essential teaching of Catholicism and that the mass doesn't even make sense without it.

Sungenis also uses the 'us vs. them' fallacy. If you draw a circle around the Catholic church, and call everything on the inside 'us' and everything on the outside 'them,' then of course it appears that there is more diversity among 'them' than there is among 'us.' But that's arbitrary since you could draw the circle around any church or organization and say the exact same thing. If you draw a circle around reformed baptist churches, call them 'us' and everybody outside 'them,' then the Catholic church is just one among many other churches, and there is far more diversity among 'them' than among 'us.'

If you draw a circle around everyone who believes in the Church, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scriptures, you've got a lot more unity amongst them then amongst the people who believe in sola scriptura.

You're just repeating the 'us vs. them' fallacy while ignoring my argument. If you draw a circle around all the Presbyterian churches who subscribe to the Westminister Confession, there is a lot more unity among them than there are among those who reject the Westminister Confession.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:11:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:09:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:27:46 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
The Catholic Church is the only one that has existed since Jesus. Personally, I find that pretty convincing.

Have you done a debate on that yet? If you have could you post a link? I spent a good amount of time this past semester studying the early church and I would be willing to contend that point. I also don't think it logically follows that since it was around since Jesus that it teaches the closest to what Jesus did.

Haven't. I'll debate it if you want; nothing to do over break.

Dang, I can't over break since all my books are at school haha
joshh_03
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:10:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You all have a miss understanding. I don't mean to sound tedious but let me repeat what sola scriptura is -- "the Bible is the only authority for Christians" faith and practice." The Bible is completely true, and the Jesus it reveals is the exclusive"the only"Savior. In a "tolerance"-oriented culture this statement is sodium in water"it"s explosive.

Today it is all too common for people to say that they honor the Bible but in practice assume that equal truth about Jesus and how He wants us to live can come from other sources.

But the Bible says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16"17, emphasis added). This means the man of God needs no outside help to mature. The Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice. By it alone we can know what Jesus desires of us.

A believer goes to church on Sunday and says amen to truth as it is presented from the Scriptures, and yet walks out of the church into the secular world Monday through Saturday and lives by a different standard of truth. He doesn"t even notice that his lifestyle contradicts what he subscribes to on Sunday, since it is "normal" to hold two opposite views at the same time! He is able to do this since he chooses one truth for his "spiritual" life and one for the "real" world. This is why we see such inconsistent Christians as those who claim the Bible is God"s Word and simultaneously hold secular views concerning evolution and other beliefs that contradict Scripture.

We also see this "Jesus plus" thinking in a currently popular view that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. In that view, nature is equal to the words of Scripture.

It is not millions of years plus the Bible. It is not the 66 books of the Bible plus the book of nature. It is not, "Yes, that is what the Bible (Jesus) teaches, but there are other ways of doing it."

All other ideas, philosophies, theories, opinions, and worldviews must be evaluated in the light of Scripture to verify whether they are true.

It is not the "Bible plus" but the Bible alone. It is not "Jesus plus""it is Jesus alone.

Sola scriptura isn't talking about 2+2 like some of you are saying. You seem to think because the equation 10000+10000 isn't found in the Bible it completely invalidates "scripture alone" no. It's a way of life. How you live. How you act. And how you think, when it comes to historical science and things as such.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:20:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:10:03 PM, joshh_03 wrote:
You all have a miss understanding. I don't mean to sound tedious but let me repeat what sola scriptura is -- "the Bible is the only authority for Christians" faith and practice." The Bible is completely true, and the Jesus it reveals is the exclusive"the only"Savior. In a "tolerance"-oriented culture this statement is sodium in water"it"s explosive.

Today it is all too common for people to say that they honor the Bible but in practice assume that equal truth about Jesus and how He wants us to live can come from other sources.

But the Bible says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16"17, emphasis added). This means the man of God needs no outside help to mature. The Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice. By it alone we can know what Jesus desires of us.

A believer goes to church on Sunday and says amen to truth as it is presented from the Scriptures, and yet walks out of the church into the secular world Monday through Saturday and lives by a different standard of truth. He doesn"t even notice that his lifestyle contradicts what he subscribes to on Sunday, since it is "normal" to hold two opposite views at the same time! He is able to do this since he chooses one truth for his "spiritual" life and one for the "real" world. This is why we see such inconsistent Christians as those who claim the Bible is God"s Word and simultaneously hold secular views concerning evolution and other beliefs that contradict Scripture.

We also see this "Jesus plus" thinking in a currently popular view that nature is the 67th book of the Bible. In that view, nature is equal to the words of Scripture.

It is not millions of years plus the Bible. It is not the 66 books of the Bible plus the book of nature. It is not, "Yes, that is what the Bible (Jesus) teaches, but there are other ways of doing it."

All other ideas, philosophies, theories, opinions, and worldviews must be evaluated in the light of Scripture to verify whether they are true.

It is not the "Bible plus" but the Bible alone. It is not "Jesus plus""it is Jesus alone.

Sola scriptura isn't talking about 2+2 like some of you are saying. You seem to think because the equation 10000+10000 isn't found in the Bible it completely invalidates "scripture alone" no. It's a way of life. How you live. How you act. And how you think, when it comes to historical science and things as such.

Now this is the sort of response I was looking for.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:51:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Catholics may disagree with Sola Scriptura, but how is it a heresy? Because it doesn't allow the Catholic church to control us with non-Scriptural beliefs?
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:51:38 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Catholics may disagree with Sola Scriptura, but how is it a heresy? Because it doesn't allow the Catholic church to control us with non-Scriptural beliefs?

It's a heresy because it's wrong.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13