[JoeT777]

How many times do you need it answered - it seems to me that there have been a number of responses already.

I have a couple of questions that may help us to move forward on this point:

1) Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

2) What do you consider sola scriptura to be? Please provide your definition.

Ok, I'll bite.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

JoeT

[Tj3]

Ok, I’ll bite.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Interesting that you did not answer the questions to whether you consider scripture to be infallible and the word of God.

Please answer those questions.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

How about we not take the Roman Catholic New Advent quote - and deal with what sola scriptura really is. If we are not going to agree to define sola scriptura the way that it is truly defined, then we are not even talking about the same thing.

As for private interpretation - I am opposed to private interpretation because it is contrary to scripture. Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

[N0help4u]

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

[Tj3]

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

Agreed. They are not dealing honestly with the issue. The approach that they are using is a logic fallacy of putting up a strawman argument. Claiming that our position is something that it is not and then shooting it down based upon their definition, rather than dealing with what our position really is.

[JoeT777]

They can't get past sola scriptura and private interpretation being two totally different separate issues and as long as they can't do that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with this.

No, not at all. As a Catholic I can interpret Scripture so long as it is harmony with the Roman Catholic Church. Then and only then do I find them to be an infallible right rule of my faith. Its then and only then do I see a harmony between New and Old Testament and the RCC’s doctrine. It’s the only way that Scriptures can be read and when done properly Scriptures do become the sole rule of faith.

You see the important thing isn’t how I want to think of God, but how God thinks of me

[Tj3]

No, not at all. As a Catholic I can interpret Scripture so long as it is harmony with the Roman Catholic Church. Then and only then do I find them to be an infallible right rule of my faith. Its then and only then do I see a harmony between New and Old Testament and the RCC’s doctrine. It’s the only way that Scriptures can be read and when done properly Scriptures do become the sole rule of faith.

So this points out the key difference between sola scriptura and Roman Catholicism. In sola scriptura, God's word (scripture) is the standard of truth in doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism, it is the Roman Catholic Church organization.

[JoeT777]

Interesting that you did not answer the questions to whether you consider scripture to be infallible and the word of God.

Please answer those questions.



How about we not take the Roman Catholic New Advent quote - and deal with what sola scriptura really is. If we are not going to agree to define sola scriptura the way that it is truly defined, then we are not even talking about the same thing.

As for private interpretation - I am opposed to private interpretation because it is contrary to scripture. Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn't minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

So this points out the key difference between sola scriptura and Roman Catholicism. In sola scriptura, God's word (scripture) is the standard of truth in doctrine, and in Roman Catholicism, it is the Roman Catholic Church organization.

Yes it does point to some very critical differences. But, if there is a Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, then it will be there despite those differences. All that’s been done thus far is to assert Sola Scriptura without any authoritative proof, if it’s there shouldn’t you be able to spell it out here?

JoeT

[ordinaryguy]

Scripture says that no man is to interpret scripture and that would mean you, me, your priest, my pastor, the pope or anyone else.

It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all. To me, interpretation is what goes on in the mind of the reader as they formulate thoughts about the words that are read. What do you mean by interpretation?

[Tj3]

It seems preposterous to me that meaning can be derived from written language without any interpretation at all.

Who said that it could?

To me, interpretation is what goes on in the mind of the reader as they formulate thoughts about the words that are read. What do you mean by interpretation?

Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

[Tj3]

Yes it does point to some very critical differences. But, if there is a Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura, then it will be there despite those differences. All that's been done thus far is to assert Sola Scriptura without any authoritative proof, if it's there shouldn't you be able to spell it out here?

JoeT

Why do you keep asking with all the responses that you have seen on the list? Do we have to repeat it over and over?

Why won't you tell us if you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

[JoeT777]

Who said that it could?



Interpretation means to understand the original intent.

And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?

I'll ask the question again, if the principle of Sola Scriptura asserts the right to be the sole arbiter of the interpretation Scripture, How do we discern which is absolute and infallible truth; which isn't? How then do we become one in our faith like Christ is with the Father?

(John 17:11): as you may recall Christ prayed, “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.”

JoeT

[Tj3]

And who would be the arbiter of what the original intent is 2,000 years after the fact without Apostolic Teachings?

First, let's deal with your assumption that we have gone 2000 years without Apostolic teachings. I have 66 books of them. Don't you have access to the Bible?

Why won't you answer the question that I keep asking?

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

[JoeT777]

First, let's deal with your assumption that we have gone 2000 years without Apostolic teachings. I have 66 books of them. Don't you have access to the Bible?

Why won't you answer the question that I keep asking?

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

You got your answer in post 26:

It's from the authority of the Catholic Church.

St. Augustine how are we to view the authenticity and of scripture; “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5

In the same post you were asked how Sola Scriptura was authenticated in Scripture. We're up to post 113. So, when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?" Are we to take it you don't have a response, that Sola Scriptura isn't authenticated in Scripture?

JoeT

[Tj3]

You got your answer in post 26:
It’s from the authority of the Catholic Church.

I am asking for your answer, not from false claims of authority made by any religious organization.

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

In the same post you were asked how Sola Scriptura was authenticated in Scripture. We're up to post 113; so when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?" Are we to take it you don't have a response, that Sola Scriptura isn't authenticated in Scripture?

I can only assume that you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

[JoeT777]

I am asking for your answer, not from false claims of authority made by any religious organization.

Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?



I can only assume that you have not been reading the posts on this thread.

Again, No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn't minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ. Again, Scripture was written by man and inspired by God.

Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God.

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Roman Catholic view of Scripture: “…declares the Bible and tradition are to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”

So then, what is tradition, but only the words of men.

[Tj3]

Again, No I don't worship a book, I don't worship in a book, and a book doesn’t minister to me with the real body and blood of Christ. Again, Scripture was written by man and inspired by God.

Who does worship a book or in a book? I assume that what you are saying is that, no you do not consider the Bible to be the word of God, and no, you do not consider it to be infallible.

Now, do you consider your church to be infallible?

Sola Scriptura: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same…”

First, why do you keep posting this dishonest distortion of what sola scriptura is and what non-Catholics believe? Do you not want to have a serious, honest discussion of the issue?

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?

Absolutely not. I am saying that no man can interpret scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Are you claiming that men in the leadership of your church can interpret scripture contrary to what the Bible says?

[Wondergirl]

Are you saying that only people "elected" can understand Scripture as you do?

Are you saying you do not have the capacity to understand Scripture unless other men explain it to you?

[ScottRC]

Are you saying you do not have the capacity to understand Scripture unless other men explain it to you?

I certainly can... at least I hope I can... but I certainly would not claim that my understanding is right for you.

It all boils down to this (IMO): When two people, both using Scripture to support their claims, have differing interpretations of a Christian teaching, how in the world do they decide who is right?

Without an authority to decide--- protected by the Holy Spirit from error--- all we have is Biblical relativism... everyone has their own personal views and no one knows what is the truth.

Hope that helps you understand what my personal "trouble" is with the Protestant faith...