The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

The Bereans were commended for not simply accepting the word of the one claiming authority. They searched the scripture daily to see if what they were told was true. Can we do any less today? It would certainly be easier to give in and throw all responsibility to one person, or group, but that won't go to far with God. He will still hold each individual responsible for what they do.

 

Good questions. Also Calvinists believe that God only intends for the elect to be able to respond to the gospel and that Christ only died for them--the rest be damned (literally). Arminians believe that God offers salvation to everyone (and that Christ died for all) yet people can respond to His grace positively or negatively. It's hard to imagine that both are even worshipping the same God, yet each claims Scripture exclusively supports their mutually exclusive views. (Just check out the Calvinist/Arminian section of this board)

 

Correction - although the RCC has argued for the infallibility of the Magesterium for a long time - it has added to that - the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks excathedra - in the office of Pope and this is claimed WITHOUT the need for a church council or vote or a vision. All he has to do is make a doctrinal statement in his office as Pope and "presto" it is "infallible".

But I am happy to admit that the RCC claims to extend that ploy to the "magesterium" as well - which is why she found it so hard to admit to the crimes of the dark ages in this recent turn of the millennium. (Who what twisted web she weaves)


"Accuracy in details"

Wrong.

The Non-RC view is that the Holy Spirit IS infallible and that HE is the successor of Christ according to John 14 and HE is the one Christ promises to be our teacher in John 16 and it is BECAUSE OF HIM that John says in 1John 2 "you have no need for anyone to teach because HIS annointing teaches you" and HE is the one that is "convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" according to John 16 and HE is the one that "we GRIEVE" when we refuse to listen to him.

Blaming OUR failures on God is like giving us license to blame the RCC that the Lutherans and Baptists don't agree on everything (assuming you think the RCC magesterium is infallible -- still).

In Christ,

Bob

 

I've never thought the RCC magesterium was infallible. I'm not Catholic.

 

Condensed, this means, a Papal infallible statement, when all conditions are met, has freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals.

So, is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope a sinner?
Yes, we all are sinners. He is no different from the rest of us in that respect.
</font>[/QUOTE]I did not mean to imply that the RCC thinks anyone who holds the office of Pope is sinless. My point is that they have the idea that he is infallible in doctrine when speaking excathedra - which provides a "mechanism" for holding everyone who "believes that" to a "single authority".

If you take AWAY his magical infallability ability - the RCC would have just as much trouble trying to get everyone in the RCC to be "convinced against their convictions" as any other church would. (In fact that is the very thing that happened when Catholics of the reformation "discovered his error").

My point was that non-RC's do not have that ploy to fall back on - which means there is no "mechanism" outside of BEING Catholic -- for non-RC's to adhere to ONE person "against their convictions".

We call that "inspiration".

Peter said "NO text of scripture is a matter of ONE's OWN interpretation - but holy men of old Moved by the Holy Spirit SPOKE from GOD".

However in the case of the Pope AND the RC magesterium they are explicit in saying that infallability is NOT dependant on their actually getting a direct message from God (as would a prophet or inspired writer).

So -- you can't use NT or OT authors as your "model" for the RCC's idea of infallability.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ahh there it is. Individuall accountability and responsibility before God.

You can not go to God and say "I should be fine because my pope told me this was ok". It won't wash in the final judgment.

Each person will stand or fall for their OWN decisions - not for the Pope's decisions made for them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is true. And given that the Arminian view is correct - what does that say about OSAS? If you have to choose salvation - and if God is ENABLING choice (supernaturally albeit) - then you can also CHOOSE to be lost after choosing to be saved. That means that all of the "endure" and "persevere" passages in scripture are "serious".

In also means that the Matt 18 idea of "fogiveness revoked" is "serious" as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It should be pointed out that Church Councils don't always agree.

The Council of Orange
"If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord"

The Council of Trent
"If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema. "

The Council of Orange has a Augustian/calvinistic flavor to it's theology while the Council of Trent contradicts this earlier Council with a Semipelagian/arminian flavor. Luther pointed out that Church councils throughout Church history contradicted one another. I am one who believes the early Christological councils were vitally important and should be studied but all council decisions must be judged in light of Scripture and not vice versa.

 

Kiffen

I don't see the statements as being contradictory at all. Eventhough I am not familiar with the council of orange.

We are predestined to grace and it is this grace which allows us to turn our love towards God (some are predestined to more than others). However we have the free will to turn away from this grace. Both council statements reflect this belief but are just describing different sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately this position doesn't fit neatly into typical protestant buckets on the matter.

[ April 01, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

 

"Where in scripture does it tell us to interpret scripture?"

The problem was already 4000 years old by the time the NT was written. The Torah was origionally written WITHOUT vowles, upper and lower case, and punctuation. Consider:


From “The Way Into Torah,” Norman J. Cohen:


. . . the Divine Word. Each and every person heard it according to his or her own capacity. Thus David said, “The voice of the Lord is in the strength” (Psalm 29:4). [The Biblical does] not say, “The voice of the Lord is in His [meaning God's] strength” [which is what we would expect], but rather, “The voice of the Lord is in [the] strength” [and capacity] of each and every person. . . .

. . . Similarly, in the final section of this passage, the Rabbis find an unusual detail in the language of the biblical text and fine-tune its meaning for their own purpose. The simple understanding of the phrase from Psalm 29:4, “The voice of the Lord in the strength,” is that “the strength” refers to God's strength. But since the verse has no possisive, and therefore does ot make this explicit, the Rabbis feel free to read it as if it meant “The voice of the Lord is in the strength [or each person].” The Rabbis are able to read the Torah text in their own way because they themselves are attentive readers.


My point – and Cohen's point? - is that the saying (oral Torah) could have been made before the Masoratic text was established and in any event if one is to claim “Bible only” then Masorites had to have been as inspired as Moses.

 

Bob,
Did you overlook the last part of this?

If GOD prevented these men from writing error, why then could He not do the same for the successor of St. Peter today?

Also, do you know when the last time the pope issued an infallible statement?

 

Papal infallibility is a relatively recent dogma--First Vatican Council, 1870, compared to such errors as infant baptism and universal church which go back to the "Ancient Fathers and their traditions",(maybe not yet infallible).

This discussion reaches the same impasse: there is no agreement as to what is the infallible standard. That ends the discussion.

Only God and His Word are infallible--all mankind is totally depraved and corrupted by sin.

Selah

Bro. James

 

#1. The "excathedra" trick is interesting since the times when it is stated "excathedra" is up to interpretation (since the entire doctrine did not exist before the 1800's) - so they did not know to put that little "tag"/announcement/label on statements by the Pope for its use in a papal statement.

#2. The "keep them from error" statement is not in the Bible. RATHER it is the "inspiration" principle that is actually "IN" the Bible that would insure infallibility. It is that INSPIRATION that the RCC DENIES for Papal statements because it does NOT want to have to claim that these statements are coming from divine revelation vision/dreams etc to the Pope.

You would "think" they would jump on that and say "well yes - the man receives special revelation and is inspired to write as were Bible authors". But they insist that this is NOT the case.

Rather they claim that by virtue of the office alone, speaking as the head of the RCC "alone" is what "makes it infallible".

You are simply stuck on that dilemma.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not true. It merely formally restated the constant teachings of the Church.

 

And what are all of these other things? can we speculate endlessly? Secular scholars claim that Jesus went to Egypt or the Far East and learned religion (and rabbinical Judaism uses this to suggest He taught witchcraft), and that he had wives and all.
Whatever all of these things He did were; they would be in harmony with the things He did that were recorded. Not things totally contrary or uncharacteristic.

They used oral tradition first; then wrote them down as the NT. The books were not written hundreds of year later as many assume; though it took that long for them to be widely circulated; and then canonized. the Church began adding its "catholic" doctrines after the books were written down; but when it came time to canonize; they still rejected many books that looked scriptural; were often done in the name of apostles (2Thess.2:2), and taught many of their "catholic" doctrines/practices! This shows to me a special instance of God moving and using them in spite of themselves to preserve His Word! But otherwise; the Church was well on its way into a slide into total apostasy. So any "infallible" or "inspired" statements of the Church after that must be judged by that written, preserved record. And most of then do not pass the test.

 

So, are you saying that the Church doesn't profess the Christian faith?

 

Not true. It merely formally restated the constant teachings of the Church. </font>[/QUOTE]Prove it - SHOW that "ex-Cathedra" labels/pronouncements/tags were used prior to the 1800's.

Until that point in time the argument was that the "MAgesterium" was the infallible entity.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thoughts?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Amen! That is exactly what I was thinking. If we leave the interpretation of God's word up to some human authority, we must assume that this person is perfect and infallible himself. How can that be when there is none righteous, no not one?

Julia